Centerfield

If a centrist is posts this link to Drudge, does that ruin my theory that only right-wingers think Hillary is aiming for the White House?

I'll eat my show if she is the pick... It is tough to gauge if this would help Kerry or not. Would Hillary unite the Democrats as much as she would Republicans?

If Hillary gets the nod, will she resort to the, "where going to take things from you on behalf of the commong good" message?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/29/politics0307EDT0010.DTL

Sorry, I couldn't resist posting it, what with all the Kerry trial balloons foating about! And my own take matches Lopez's.

The last time I saw poll figures, putting Hillary on the ticket pulled Kerry's chances down considerably. I find the health care angle more intriguing.

The blogosphere uproar over that Hillary quote was one of the sillier cyber-tempests in at least a week.

First, she was specifically addressing the rich people in the audience, not the entire country.

Second, ALL taxation is supposedly taken from taxpayers for the common good. Now, we can dispute the amount of taxation to be taken for the public good, or whether it's actually spent for the common good, but her statement was a simple truth.

Oberon is correct.

Why do people get such a knicker twist over "common good"?

It is not the use of the word that bothers me, it is her implication that she knows how to better spend your money than you do. Hillary comes off as someone who simply thinks God put her on this earth to direct the masses, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is how she actually felt.

Oh, but Bush knows how to spend your money better on foreign adventures. Hunger and disease kill as surely as any bullet, and protecting citizens entails protecting them from these less fear-inspiring threats. Moreover, the system is rigged, those who own the means of production can exploit surplus-value from those whose most valuable possession is their labor-power. It follows, therefore, that "your" money is actually stolen labor-time from the workers.

What Mathew said. Otherwise, Oberon, Carla, we should just hand ALL our money over to the gummint...after all, if ALL taxation is for the "common good...."

The fallacy lies in the word "good." Nope, sorry, all taxes are taken for public use, not the public or common "good." Now we can debate how much of that public confiscation of private funds for public use is actually needed or desirable (and do, endlessly) but the value assumption implied by the word "good" is NOT inherent in taxation.

Moreover, the system is rigged, those who own the means of production can exploit surplus-value from those whose most valuable possession is their labor-power. It follows, therefore, that "your" money is actually stolen labor-time from the workers.

Very nice, Bo. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any progress...hey! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

Yes, "public use" is more accurate than "public good". That's what I meant when I wrote that it's debatable whether tax money is actually spent on the public good.

Sorry to lecture...but Hillary chose the phrasing, and the implication was clear that in her opinion the "common good" superseded the individual good. The only question is where that line gets drawn.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

I'd point out that the Bush tax cuts extended clear down to the lowest levels of income, especially for those of us with kids who benefited from the expanded child & EITC credits. So pretty much everyone except the very poorest souls who don't pay taxes to begin with were "well enough off" that "the tax cuts may have helped you." If we are to take Hillary literally, she wants to take money back from everyone that benefited from the Bush tax bill--which is pretty much everyone not already in poverty, and some who are--"on behalf of the common good."

That's not even robbing the rich to help the poor--that's robbing everyone to help the government.

But I actually agree with you--I don't know why anyone is surprised, or why it's all that noteworthy. Hillary's socialist and "soak the rich" leanings are not exactly a secret.

Tax and fiscal policy is worthy of a thread of its own. Right now I kinda view Congress as a bunch of drunken sailors with stolen credit cards. Before dunning the cardholders for extra payments, maybe we ought to try stopping the sailors.

What have the tax cuts accomplished: more low-paying jobs. How wonderful. What else have they accomplished: massive deficits.

O.k. a hard worker is laid off. Why? There are a many reasons that do not include a presumption that there is something wrong with him. That the worker is lazy is the unstated assumption in every rightwing argument against social welfare. The truth is many workers are not laid off because they are lazy. So, our hard worker has been laid off, and he has a family. What would happen to him and his family if there was no social welfare? Maybe the community would be generous, but that is uncertain. Tell me, what did the worker do to deserve unemployment? Bad luck, so he should be expected to live on the streets, living hand to mouth, even tho the society is perfectly capable of providing to hima and his family his basic needs. Is that what you think? Because why you have to share your justly acquired property, its not your fault he got unemployed.

Lets assume you're a fine Libertarian, and you put individual freedom first. Now, I ask you, how much freedom does an individual have if he does not have the basic things he needs to survive: food, shelter, and medicine. The Libertarians has just condemned the individual and his rights to death. So much for individual freedom, and so much for the individual!

You shouldn't assume anything about me, Bo.

Your economics are flawed, your argument is cant, and your conclusion is rant.

"Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

How can I respond to what you've written? My economics are not flawed, my argument is not cant, and my conclusions are a little rant. I can make unsupported assertions too. Still, I question what is accomplished by making such unsupported assertions. I guess we'll just have to take your word for it. After all, you used an obscure word like "cant", so you must be pretty smart.

Your last quote is interesting. I can sense that it is a mocking phrase. Evidently, you feel mockery can pass for argument. I can feel your anger that anyone would dare challenge the holy orthodoxy. You are a little like those rightwing writers who denounce Noam Chomsky, they make no logical arguments against him, but they just say that he is anti-American and a liar. They don't feel the need to make any arguments. Whatever.

Mockery is a perfectly valid response to marginal political diatribe, Bo. By highlighting dogmatic verbiage, it saves wasting effort on deconstructing complex but vacuous ideological posturing, encouraging a return to basic proofs and principles in discussion. Feel free to mock me in return. I'm fond of the collected works of Monty Python, myself.

But hey, don't let me stop you from arguing whatever it is you think you're arguing. We've got electrons to spare. I note that (IMHO) broad tangential assertions dragged in to provide straw men for mangled Marxist polemics don't indicate any serious intellectual engagement with the subject, just the desire to proselytize.

And as I said before, assuming anything about me, or anyone else here for that matter, is a counter-productive waste of your assumptions.

"This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes." (That's me mocking my own pedantry, BTW.)

Let me repeat my very SIMPLE point: freedom is meaningless without the economic wherewithal to exercise it. Is that simple enough? Or is it too ideologically "complex?" If it is so empty, why not simply refute it? I won't mock you, it would be pointless.