Hillary advocating socialism

From Yahoo!:

MANCHESTER, N.H. (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.

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.

“It takes a village….” to apparently make everyone succeed.

“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.”

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

The problem I see here is that Hillary is basically suggesting that “Government is the solution to every problem”. I really don’t want the government working for me, with me, at me, or generally in a direction coming near me at all.

The government should exist to provide a solid legal framework in which private commerce can take place. Period. That involves securing the borders and providing for a military to keep that framework safe. Health care, education, and other things the government really shouldn’t be too involved with should be kept free of the bureaucratic system.

“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,” she said. “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

No, I completely disagree. Fairness happens despite government policies, not because of them. She talks up the free market and then trashes it by saying it must be heavily government regulated. As in, she doesn’t believe in the free market being able to take care of itself.

I’ll give you the best example. Here in New York State you basically have the choice of state-run socialized health insurance or none at all. There are about 3 other companies who offer private health insurance at ridiculous prices which cover almost nothing. There is no private competition here because the state offers socialized health care. Therefore, private insurance companies don’t need to compete here because they can’t compete with cheap, sometimes free, state health insurance. Thank you George Pataki.

I fear the exact same would be true on a national level with some form of Hillary-care.

Hot Air has more analysis of Hillary’s collectivism.