That's a keeper!

Not really, the quote is factual. The Snopes spin tries to make it sound like Clinton did not really mean it...  She did and does!

I like Bastiat's take: "every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."  Should we as a people help uplift the poor? Yes.  Should we pass on that responsibility to the government? No.  Individual charity has always FAR surpassed government assistance.  However, "non-profit" orgs formed by the likes of the Clintons, for example, do little to help anyone but those that are paid employees and contractors of those foundations — same with government bureaucracies. 

Should families relegated to the ghettos of Chicago and Detroit be kept as perpetual dependents for generations while their children get substandard 'free' education?  When welfare becomes a racket, it serves only to buy votes from the poor souls suckered into dependency.  Reston likely grew up in a time before the system became so corrupted.  Socialism eventually fails when there are more takers than contributors, so it starts out well, but eventually collapses under its own weight.

Reston, please realize that your family's welfare payments were all borrowed on the backs of future generations — and the bill comes due.  Do people benefit financially from government redistribution, yes, but at what cost to the rest of us?  If people are in need of insurance, then all who want that protection should have the option of joining voluntarily.  But if all expect to collect, the venture eventually goes bankrupt.  Never-ending money printing eventually leads to WAR as nations collapse and need to raid the coffers of their weaker neighbors.  It is a CON!

Some good points, David, but capitalism is not the problem but rather the solution.  Before the Civil War, there were 'free' states and 'slave' states.  The free states practiced 'capitalism' while the slave states did not (more of a form of communism for the slaves).  It was capitalism that freed the slaves. ;-)

Humankind has been competing for territory since the beginning of time — that will never go away.  In the wild, tigers can only hold the territory they can patrol and must often fight interlopers to keep that territory.  I agree that humans should not possess more land than they can use, and in the free American states, for the first time in recent history, a man could own land free and clear of liens and encumbrances. 

However, the old British system crept back in whereby landowners were required to pay taxes on their land, otherwise 'title' to it could be taken away.  I won't go into the long history of land patents and their use, but ever since the Bureau of Land Management stopped managing land patents, their use was essentially replaced with state-issued certificates of title.  Americans lost their right to hold land in allodium — again, this is not capitalism, it's more like serfdom.

Let's stop using this term 'capitalism' coined by the Marxists.  What we are talking about is Commerce which requires a trading medium of intrinsic value used in a free market.  This is also referred to as private enterprise.  Commerce was to be regulated by the commercial law jurisdiction while the common law jurisdiction was for the common man, his property, his labor, his own production — the common man is not to be regulated like a corporation, and a corporation is not to be treated as a 'person.'

This blurring of the lines can be traced directly to the use of commercial paper as the nation's trading medium (i.e. currency) with a private monopoly on its use — possession of gold was declared illegal and was required by law to be converted into interest-bearing debt-instruments forever.  Since we are no longer trading with lawful specie but rather commercial paper, we enter into the commercial jurisdiction that regulates its use and all property held as collateral for it.  As a result we don't actually 'buy' anything except the equitable interest of the property — the property is still held by its true owners which is why they may tax it, license for its use, and confiscate it if the rules are not followed.  This is not capitalism!  This is a form of serfdom or feudalism which the Americans threw off in 1776.

Americans still have the right to our sovereignty as declared in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution.  The corruption is not well known because it is not taught anymore.  Know the truth, and the truth will make you free.

I think you will find the richest individuals in the world got that way through government contracts and monopolistic financial corporations.  In the game of Monopoly, the banker is always the last man standing — he just lets us play his game while everything ends up back in the box...

Socialism in its purest form is NOT what life is all about — certainly not mine, anyway.  With socialists, it's either their way or no way, liberty be damned.  Apparently, there is no compassion without socialism...  I know socialists are usually atheists, but really, have you no shame whatsoever to lay claim to compassion as the socialists' way? 

Laying claim to what is not yours is hardly compassionate.  Dictating to others from cradle to grave is not compassion.  What the socialists are saying is that THEY are compassionate while those that dare to extend charity to those they wish are not.  Sheesh, how arrogant and ungrateful can you get! 

Plus you can't force people under a socialist regime to be compassionate any more than you can force Christians to love their neighbor as is their creed.  And therein lies the rub — indeed compassion is integral for a civilized people, but how to inspire it?  Compassion cannot be legislated — that only becomes theft.  Better to live by the Golden Rule for its own sake than to be ruled 'for your own good.'  The laws of nature cannot be broken, so we best get to living in harmony with them or else some bright bloke will sucker us into the false promises of socialism where we will then find ourselves conned out of everything.

Just like the US, Canada started creating currency by issuing bonds to be 'bought' by private banks in 1913.  There were no taxes on labor up until that point.  There is in fact a difference between the Bank of Canada and the Federal Reserve.  In the US, the US Treasury is not permitted to issue bank notes as currency, they instead work-around by creating Treasury Bonds and allow the Fed to 'buy' them with currency they create of of nothing — thus the currency is issued with interest-bearing debt.

However, the Bank of Canada is authorized to create all the money the government needs interest-free and debt-free, the only 'tax' being inflation.  Instead, the Canadian government 'borrows' from the private banks that also create the money out of nothing (i.e. monetizing debt), and interest is due.  Canadians are kept in the dark just like Americans, and generations have now passed not knowing how things really worked when both the US and Canada were among the most prosperous nations in the world. 

Working for over six months in a year to pay taxes is nothing short of servitude!  This is the same old British colonial system -- even indentured servants got a better return...

Ron, I don't know what the heck you are talking about, but it sounds very interesting...

Thus began the long, slippery slope towards statism.  Even Madison couldn't stop it, just as he couldn't stop the formation of another central bank... The Constitution is just a piece of paper if there is no way to enforce the rules and limits of government power explicitly agreed upon.

How things have changed!  Illegal immigrants are given EBT cards, free hotel accommodations, Medicare, driver's licenses, and even registered to vote!

I do love this excerpt from Franklin years before the American Revolution.  Whenever someone says real socialism hasn't been tried, they have merely ignored history.  All the empty promises of socialism have been tried many, many times.  These lofty dreams do not take into account human nature — particularly free will.  Sure, it is pretty cool to design a city, but ask the citizens how well it actually works, only to discover they have no say in the process.

This sort of thing has been going on in America since Plymouth Rock.  Communism was tried initially, but for all the same reasons failed miserably resulting in starving people.  Without a personal incentive to work hard, the actual 'workers' become resentful of those they have to take care of who are not even in their own family. Ask those that escaped the USSR how well this works! 

Unfortunately, the social engineers who come up with these plans (that ultimately serve them BTW) target an uneducated youth that has not yet had to shoulder the responsibilities of life.  Untold millions have been murdered with 'out with the old, in with the new' by red guards and brown shirts.  The poor are encouraged to join the military to get food and shelter.  This is the oldest trick in the book for would-be Caesar's, czars (same thing), and ruling aristocracies in all their forms.

The power is with the People.  And when they are tired of being serfs on their own land, they will do something about it — or until the middle class stops paying for it.

Right on, Nick!  That is the very weak link to a utopian/socialist idea — who can you trust to implement it?  We may as well just have a benevolent king — how come that was so hard, too? 

Better to defend the freedom for people to live their lives on their own terms while respecting others to do the same.  The 'poor' don't realize they are poor because they are ruled.  If they weren't, they could take care of themselves, or at least have the option.  State intervention in all its forms has created more ills than it cures, as the end result is almost always the consolidation of power and property into fewer and fewer hands.

It is unlikely that we can ever return to a currency backed solely by gold and silver.  But we could start trading with a currency backed by a breadbasket of non-perishable commodities, including several precious metals, oil, water, etc..  Managing such a currency would require integrity of the highest order — that which was expected of the US Treasury.  Our currency would have to be a hard currency only — we must make a distinction between cash and credit.  If people want to invest in speculative commercial paper, they may do so at their own risk, but it should not become legal tender.  Bad money pushes out the good.

For goodness sake, Robert, if you understand the evils of central banking, then you must realize that isn't 'capitalism'.  Heck, show me one time the founders ever spoke about capitalism — show me ever the first time the word capitalism started being used.  I'll tell you, Marx coined the term to define the opposition to communism.  Anyone that spouts anti-capitalist rhetoric is affirming Marxism — and it is self-evident among the 'antifa' types and 'progressive' liberals.  You guys are full of yourselves.  Everywhere this rhetoric has flourished has been followed with millions dead.  Just stop it!

Again the tired old excuse, "the reality is that these countries hadn't had real Socialism" — yes, they did!  Communist USSR, Nazi Germany, communist/socialist Latin American countries all implemented socialism in its various authoritarian forms and devolved into dictatorship — that's the end result of a one-party system.  Sheesh, wake up and smell the coffee.  As far as I can tell, American socialists are an ungrateful and envious bunch that would rather cut the baby in half than return it to its true mother.  This nihilistic rhetoric yields nothing but destruction, "if I can't have it, then no one should."  Disgusting...

Eloquently put, as usual Patrick Henry!

Sorry, Robert but your entire argument is based on a false premise.  It is not compassionate to subjugate an entire nation for 'compassion' i.e. the greater good.  Compassion is best expressed individually not through a soulless state.  Better to have a million independent and self-determining people decide individually what best helps his brother than a central authority that has stolen the power of all the people to then selectively distribute it back to privileged classes.  Every government that has fallen to this ideology has merely put in place an autocracy, and the common people have been leveled into poverty while an aristocratic few rise to the top.

Seriously, Robert, have you no shame?  To take from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.  Yes, real civilization requires a compassionate and honorable people, and the American republican form is suited for none other.  But compassion cannot be legislated by threat of the state.

You have said that true socialism has never really been implemented. Hah!  It sure as hell has!  The truth is the promises of socialism have never been realized because they cannot ever be — it is a con.  So-called American 'capitalism' today is not capitalism at all — the money system is completely a copy of communism, and we can trace all our ills to this system foisted upon us in 1913.  Since then, ever the noose has tightened as FDR embraced fascism, and put all into perpetual debt to the banking cartel, our new masters. 

Socialism cannot even begin to be implemented without a central bank that can create money out of nothing and spend it on the social programs that never really do anything but enrich the corporations that manage them.  Our medicines are poisonous, our educators corrupt the truth, our 'representatives' give themselves the power to 'rule' us, and our bankers seize our property and rent it back to us — and don't get me started on the lawyers that hold this statist system together! 

We have become enslaved by this socialist promise, and it will not end any better than it did for the USSR.  Hence the eternal requirement for every sovereign being is to learn the truth, be guided by the Law: as you sow, so shall you reap.  The Golden Rule is still golden, we need no other.

Hey, Mike, give it another shot.  I'd like to hear your response to Robert.

The rules for taxation can be lawfully applied to corporations via the Uniform Commercial Code.  The only lawful taxes authorized by the US Constitution are excise taxes, e.g. tariffs, and up until 1913 that was the primary source of revenue for the government.  The US was thoroughly rich before then, with gold and silver used as currency — every dollar in circulation was backed with a hard asset.  Today every dollar is backed by debt-bearing commercial paper which was never to be used as currency but a tool for promoting commercial transactions — the risk was borne by the companies that traded in these IOUs and if the debt was not repaid, there were consequences that were litigated in commercial courts.

Once commercial paper became the trading medium for all, we all became commercial entities trading in commercial paper, thus subject to the reams and reams of rules in the Uniform Commercial Code.  The distinction between corporation and person became blurred such that today corporations are treated as people and people are treated as corporations.

We need to return to a monetary system where cash and credit are distinctly different.  The IRS treats us all as commercial entities and tags our 'income' with various excise tax codes in order to qualify the tax as constitutional.  But labor was never to be taxed!  That is slavery.  It behooves every citizen to learn the truth about the corruption of the monetary system — but don't expect any of this to be taught in public education (and you know why).  The Wafflers of this world cannot face the fact that they have been in collusion with this system because their 'income' would have never been possible without it.  So it is 'fair' to them.

No, Dick, what Marx said is not irrelevant.  Marx's ideology has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the enslavement of the rest.

No, Mr. "A".  The actions advocated by Marx in the Communist Manifesto are a 'how to' list for enslaving a populace to be ruled by an elite.  Is that good or bad?  For the slaves, bad, for the enslavers, good.  Whose side are you on anyway?

Yes, it was not only propaganda but also policy.  Nothing has been inverted — this is the policy of a statist form of government, whether from the left or the right. 

The final line says it all: "The Common Good Before the Individual Good"  Who determines that?  How can it be enforced?  Is this what the American Founders fought for?  Is this what the Constitution empowers government to do?

Face it, democrats, progressives and socialists, this is your creed, no matter how you try to rationalize it, and the only way to enforce such an ideal is to corrupt classical liberal republican governance into its polar opposite.  This utopian dream is but a nightmare.  Ignorant hypocrites all!

True, without a 'right' view of 'good' and 'bad' this quote supports any action whether right or not.  Take the progressive activism constantly at work because silence is considered submission.  That being said, there is too much complacency IMO among those that could rightfully counter the assaults of 'progressive' liberals (i.e. Marxists).

No, I don't think so.  When given no other choice but to be ruled by communists or fascists, we must concede that we have lost our 'right' to dictate our own lives.  Pure democracy is but mob rule, where the individual has little choice to go with the mob or else be trampled.

Interesting.  I suppose it means that if we do not care to recognize a line between 'right and wrong', we will inevitably cross it.