Last week I posed the question why would a thoughtful, responsible woman support Hillary Clinton. Aside from the patent phoniness about her, the endless list of head-shaking lies, her red herring platforms, and the sordid, humiliating history that she and her husband have already put the country through, perhaps the biggest problem with her for any self-respecting frugalist is her insistence on marginalizing achievement, stoking class envy, and touting that oh so favorite liberal line that the “rich” are selfish folk who just do not pay their fair share in taxes.
Any adult who has worked hard to accomplish a financial stability should feel a definite rise in blood pressure every time this hypocritical crook (or any of her other multi-millionaire party buds) fall back to this well-worn Democratic talking point. Before we get to the absurdity of Hillary Clinton resorting to this class envy tactic, let us, as before, take on the dearth of logic to the entire premise.
Start by explaining this to me: Why is it considered by the liberals “selfish” for a person to work hard, delay gratification, save and invest responsibly, and wish to keep most of his or her earnings in order to provide for his or her family; but it is not selfish for a person to wish/demand that the government take the money from others and simply give it to him or her? Can anyone answer that for me?
Why is it selfish to wish to keep the money one has worked hard to earn, but unselfish for one-half of the country to pay absolutely no federal income taxes, while complaining that the rich do not pay their fair share? Why, really, is it selfish for a hard-working American to labor for years in an effort to create a safety net for his or her own family, but unselfish for others to demand that the government provide that safety net by heavily taxing others? Why is it selfish for a person to put in twenty plus years of hard work in part to sock away money for his or her children’s college educations, but unselfish for others to save nothing and to demand that the government provide “free education,” once again, at the expense of the tax payers?
I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point. The notion that it is “selfish” to work hard to succeed, to save and invest responsibly, to live frugally, and to expect to be able to use one’s own income to provide for a family is another logically bankrupt premise that any thinking person should not only dismiss, but resent. And to pander to the jealousy of those who, through poor personal choices, failed to plan, work, and save similarly is just wrong on so many levels.
Ben Franklin aptly predicted: “Once the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” How frighteningly prescient was this statement as our country plods blithely ahead to a twenty TRILLION dollar debt?
Hillary Clinton, you see, wants to encourage anything but responsible, frugal living. After all, frugal, responsible, self-reliant people have no dependence on the government, no jealousy of others, no Pavlovian tendency to mindlessly vote for whatever candidate promises to give more and more free stuff to them. Far worse, the Clinton machine, just like the Obama one we have endured, wants chiefly to vilify achievement so as to stoke class envy and turn out the vote of the masses of people who wish to vote themselves food stamps, cell phones, health coverage, college educations.
So why indeed would a responsible, thoughtful person vote for such a person? We can only hope that people will ponder and circulate this question before November.