Hillary and Barack: Two Peas in a Class-Warfare Pod

Every so often, I come across some statement by President Obama that is either jaw-droppingly misguided or unintentionally revealing, and I place it in my is-this-the-worst-thing-he-ever-said file.

His “spread the wealth” comment to Joe the Plumber is the most famous example, but that was before I started this blog. Previous entries on my list include.

• In my video on class warfare, I noted that Obama said in 2008 that – for reasons of “fairness” – he wanted to raise the capital gains tax even if the government lost revenue.
• A couple of years ago, he arrogantly remarked that “at some point you have made enough money.”
• In 2011, the President was complaining about bank fees and assertedthat, “you don’t have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit…”
  

  “Barack, I read this great book that says ‘from each according to his ability…'”

• Earlier this year, Obama made his infamous “you didn’t build that” statement, which generated some very amusing political cartoons.

But our Secretary of State also likes saying odd things.

• Mrs. Clinton said we can’t end the War on Drugs because “there is just too much money in it,” apparently oblivious to the fact that high profits for the cartels only exist because of criminalization.
• In 2010, while speaking in Latin America, she asserted that, “the wealthy across the Americas to pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes in order to eliminate poverty and promote economic opportunity for all.”
• While testifying before Congress, she repeated her argument that more revenue improves economic development, claiming that, “well-off Pakistani’s do not pay their fair share for the services that are needed.”
• And showing that her understanding of geography is just as weak as her understanding of public finance economics, Hillary claimed, “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they’re growing like crazy.”

Now we have another Hillary Clinton quote, as reported by the Guardian.

There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to their growth of their own countries.

Wow, that’s remarkable. She’s actually claiming that rich people somehow get a lot of money without boosting growth, even though they obviously provided some value and benefit in order get people to voluntarily pay money for whatever it is that made the person wealthy.

But that’s not the most offensive part of her statement. What really stuns me is the assertion that growth will be enhanced if these successful people give a greater share of their money to a corrupt and venal political class.

For all intents and purposes, she is asserting that government in these nations is too small, even though the evidence from western nations shows that small governments were very conducive to growth. Moreover, we’re supposed to believe that high tax rates won’t discourage productive economic behavior.

Which leads me to ask a simple question: Can anybody show me a poor nation that became a rich nation while imposing high tax rates and having a bloated public sector?

P.S. Even though Mrs. Clinton wasn’t making any distinction, allow me to stipulate that there are some rich people who got money dishonestly. I addressed this issue in a post last year and I suspect that some politicians think rich people are sleazy crooks because the rich people they hang out with are sleazy crooks.

P.P.S. Click here to get the answer to the question about nations that became rich with high tax rates and big government.