“Now, 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.”

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/.....w/?id=1839

Now i’m not debating whether or not she is right but “I don’t think academic crimes are excusable merely because they are academic. If we cannot have honesty, what’s the rest worth”

Damn straight! Rules — like antitrust rules. Surely you don’t advocate that we NOT have fair competition in free markets, do you? Antitrust is one of the key tools we have to make free markets work at all.

It’s one thing to complain about specific rules and regulations, but quite another to simply say you oppose all rules (which I’m assuming, since in that quoted phrase Sen. Clinton says nothing other than some few rules are required), which makes you close to an anarchist, doesn’t it?

Anarchy is worse than free markets, even and especially Hillary Clinton-regulated free markets.

It’s easy to see why government wealth distribution is popular with such a broad spectrum of people. There is the support from the rich who want to sound caring when they support government handouts and wealth redistribution while they remain unaffected because their contribution through taxes isn’t enough to affect their lifestyle. Then there is the support form a growing number of the middle class who are paying so much to finance handouts, but don’t want to say someone shouldn’t get them (that would be mean) but instead say they should get them too. It’s also a wider base of support to say “give it to me too” instead of “let me keep mine.” Most troubling though, government handouts are popular with those who have found government wealth redistribution handouts more profitable than working enough to support themselves. The choice between becoming finically independent to support their families and/or themselves through enough hard work vs. choosing not to and getting others to pay through the government has been a sufficiently easy choice for enough people to negatively affect us all.

The ever increasing taxation for government handouts (and other outrageous spending) especially harms people who come from the lower economic classes, like me, that are trying just to reach the middle class lifestyle but are finding it ever more difficult to reach because of higher taxes that the middle class ends up paying. This level of taxation the middle class carries also establishes a disincentive for others to even try to become self sufficient perpetuating a culture of taxpayer funded government handouts.

All of these wealth redistribution supporters are in addition to the people that actually do need taxpayer funded handouts because they are incapable of taking care of themselves.

It is going to take society, not politicians, making the distinction between those in need from those that don’t that is going to get politicians, like Hillary and others, to do something other than telling (insert ANY audience) they are going to be the ones who will come out ahead with wealth distribution in order to get elected and is going to enable us to make real progress against government dependency, perpetual poverty, and leaving the ever shrinking middle class financially handicapped from footing the bill. FOr those that can support themselves but are not managing to need tools, not wealth redistibution.

Hmm. I think you’re putting words in my mouth or making insinuations. I have no problem with scholarships for those who need them. In fact, that is one of the reasons I make donations, because I believe there should be need based scholarships, especially for those who not only need them but work hard and get good grades.

As far as generational wealth goes, I believe it is a bit of a dangerous thing in that it can spoil some and be a very positive influence on others. Regardless, I think a parent that works hard has every right to pass on their wealth to those they love. I never said anything like “too bad kid it’s your fault”, I think we need to realize that everything we do today effects not only ourselves but, our children in the future. If we want to leave them with money or put them through certain schools, we have to make certain sacrifices or work certain jobs.

It’s just a fact of life, you can’t go through life doing anything and expect the government to take care of your children’s higher education , healthcare, well being (welfare), and retirement. It’s detrimental for all of society to allow a nanny state that frees parents from their responsibility to take care of their children and do their best to prepare for “themselves and their posterity”.

I was born into an upper-middle class family that lives below its means, worked summers and Sundays in high school, and I’m still going to have to work my way through grad school because my parents can’t afford it. My significantly less fortunate boyfriend works ten hours a week and is still barely making it, not to mention he had to incur significant loans to get here in the first place. Were it not for government money, he would not be able to get a college education, period, dooming him to a crappy, low-pay job and his children to similarly dire straits. And your response is to say, too bad, kid, that’s your fault? For shame.

I’d love to see you justify that one. Or, for that matter, to explain how a child has “earned” or “deserved” its parents’ money any more than a child has “earned” a government bond.

I have no problem with people passing their money to their family, I have a problem with the government redistributing wealth. The GI Bill doesn’t fit in this category as I see it as a necessary benefit for our soldiers in uniform who are protecting this country. Handing out $5,000 to every baby born is totally different. You should not get money just for being born unless your parents earned and saved it.

Our government continues to become the parents of millions of kids, taking away tthe need to support kids with welfare and now taking away the need to provide healthcare for kids with middle class SCHIP (thanks to Bush for defeating that one) and eventually nationalized healthcare. We don’t need a nanny state that pays for baby bonds, healthcare, welfare and retirement. We need citizens who have to learn to save their own money, provide for their children and make America a better place through private industry not government intervention.