Hillary Clinton announced that she would campaign on a platform that would emphasize the need for collective economics and move away from individual performance and success. It could be called an extension of "It Takes A Village," and it might have been -- had the newspapers bothered to cover it.

This kind of rhetoric isn't new for Hillary. She has promoted collectivist economics for two decades now. Her effort to nationalize health care reflected the same kind of thinking, and this statement shows that she hasn't learned much from that debacle. Almost three years ago, she promised that she would "take things away from [Americans] for the common good," back when the economy had just started its latest expansion. That's collectivism, and it's not limited to Hillary among Democratic candidates.

Source

It sounds like a ready-made "economic solution" for a generation of neutered a$$ clowns like John Mayer. It also "feels" compatible and in line with the values of a generation thrashing about in its dotage and searching for the big easy.

**RELATED**

Hillary: Who’s in the mood for a little collectivism? We’re all in it together!

Say this much for the Glacier: however much her surname, her accent, her choice of baseball team, or her position on Iraq may change, her belief in taking things away from you for the common good remains evergreen.

And the most charming part? How easily and naturally confiscatory rhetoric escapes her lips. “We might need to raise taxes” is a blue-party position; but “we’re going to take those profits”? That’s pure Green, baby.

Hey — that amnesty’s not going to pay for itself.

Source

Best comment from Hot Air visitor:

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

Alrighty then. Question for Madame Hillary: Who in the government gets to decide what's "fair?"

Follow-up question: "And what exactly qualifies them as judges of 'fairness?'"

I thought so.

Labels: clintons, democrats, generational conflict