by Dave Blount | April 15, 2015 12:36 pm
The hypocrisy is enough to unhinge your jaw. Fresh on the heels of learning that Slick Willie and Shrillary have raked in a staggering $2 billion through their notoriously corrupt Clinton Foundation, we read this:
Hillary Clinton, under pressure from the left wing of her Democratic Party to aggressively campaign against income inequality, voiced concern about the hefty paychecks of some corporate executives in an email to supporters.
Striking a populist note, Clinton, who announced on Sunday she was running for president in 2016, said American families were still facing financial hardship at a time “when the average CEO makes about 300 times what the average worker makes.”
Considering the explosion in donations to the Clinton Foundation evidently inspired by her influence peddling to foreign governments, and the $billions that went missing from the State Department while she was at the helm, it is conceivable that Secretary of State Shrillary was recently making 300 times what an average CEO makes. Given the Clintons’ infamous knack for monetizing political power, if she makes it back into the White House, she will make more still.
Liberals fret about “income inequality” for the same reason they respond to water shortages by regulating how long you can spend in the shower, rather than building more reservoirs. Oligarchical collectivism entails looking at wealth as a fixed pie, to be divvied up by the oligarchy. Their lunatic ideology literally requires them to believe that you can only become rich by making others poor.
Americans, in stark contrast, know that a rising tide lifts all boats.
What is better: to get $10 and see another guy get $20, or for you both to get $5 regardless of effort or effectiveness? The answer to this question determines whether you are a moonbat or an American.
The objection to income inequality is morally shameful. Imagine applying it to baseball by redistributing wins from good teams to bad teams, working progressively toward the utopian goal of every team posting a .500 record every season. Only a moonbat would regard that as fair or desirable.
Like all things Democrat, the objection is not only foolish but fake. Hyper-regulated liberal crony capitalism actually leads to greater income disparities:
The Brookings Institution used 2012 Census data to determine the most income unequal cities in America — and their study found that from LA to Atlanta, cities with liberal governments are also the ones with the largest divide between the poor and the rich.
The Brookings Institution is a liberal think tank.
You say most all cities have liberal governments? Okay, let’s compare states. Leftists like to measure income inequality with the Gini coefficient:
According to 2012 Census Bureau data (the latest available figures), the District of Columbia, New York, Connecticut, Mississippi and Louisiana have the highest measure of income inequality of all the states; Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, Hawaii and New Hampshire have the lowest Gini coefficients. The three places that are most unequal—Washington, D.C., New York and Connecticut—are dominated by liberal policies and politicians. Four of the five states with the lowest Gini coefficients—Wyoming, Alaska, Utah and New Hampshire—are generally red states.
In the Northeast, the state with the lowest Gini coefficient is New Hampshire (.430), which has no income tax and a lower overall state tax burden than that of its much more liberal neighbors Massachusetts (Gini coefficient .480) and Vermont (.439). Texas is often regarded as an unregulated Wild West of winner-take-all-capitalism, while California is held up as the model of progressive government. Yet Texas has a lower Gini coefficient (.477) and a lower poverty rate (20.5%) than California (Gini coefficient .482, poverty rate 25.8%).
If progs were at least sincere in their morally bankrupt goal of achieving income equality, they would want a government more like Texas than California. But that is hardly what Shrillary has in mind. Being a Democrat, she is the farthest thing from sincere, and you can’t blame her. Imagine trying to run on this platform: All I care about is amassing power and wealth at your expense. That is about all she could say that wouldn’t be a lie.
On tips from J, Petterssonp, and Tchhht!!! Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/hillary-clinton-2/neo-marxist-rhetoric-from-zillionaire-hillary/
Copyright ©2022 John Hawkins' Right Wing News unless otherwise noted.