Hillary confirms that she is a socialist - I'm scared

I read this via sweetness-light and about filled my drawers.  This next to her saying she will cease oil companies profits, this is the most clear and frightening statement, i've ever heard someone make against American freedoms.

Here's the meat. I'll highlight the scare parts, for those of you who might miss the wolf in the sheeps clothing.

Clinton promotes shared responsibility

By HOLLY RAMER, Associated Press Writer

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.

“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.

“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.” …

AHHHHHHH. Does she honestly believe that it is the governments job to create a social society.  Does she really believe that it is the government who must 'ensure' that this happens.

Hello people, she just said word for word, she is going to limit growth, by pairing it with fairness.  The means we can only grow at the pace of the lowest common denominator.

"There is no great force for economic growth that free markets, BUT.." There should never in a free societly, the word "but" following that statement. Especially when but is followed by "with rules".  Government rules?

"Ensure the middle class succeeds"????  I'm going to be sick.

UPDATE:  Gary Gross caught it as well.  Via California Conservative:

I didn’t think I’d ever see the day when a major party presidential candidate proposed a socialist economic policy. That day has now come with this Hillary article. Howard Wolfson is certain to spin this as not being socialism but he’s lying through his teeth. Here’s what I’m talking about:

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.

“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.”

The minute that a Democrat starts talking about fairness, it’s time to hide your wallet. It’s that simple. Implicit in Hillary’s statements is her opinion on your ability to make wise decisions. I’m perfectly comfortable making my own decisions. I suspect that most people think that they can prosper if governmental interference is kept to a minimum. I further suspect that most people don’t think in terms of the gap between the rich and poor widening. I’m betting that most people focus solely on being prosperous.

“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.”

TRANSLATION: Free markets work best when we micromanage them to the Nth degree. We know that the rich will abuse the working class people if we don’t micromanage them into submission.

There’s no more destructive economic force than a liberal with a pro-regulation agenda and a micromanagement mindset. What isn’t fair about keeping taxes low on everyone? Why shouldn’t we assume that people will prosper if government stays out of their way?

This is just another facet of Hillary’s “it takes a village” agenda. That was just a gussied up term for nanny state, the goal of which was to indoctrinate children.