Hillary Clinton

[starrmtn001]

Hillary Clinton # ORLANDO SHOOTER'S DAD in Attends Clinton Rally


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8oiW07i9sA

[TigerLily]

Hi TL!

What you have done here is called a "static analysis," where one assumes everything in our economy stays the same after either program is instituted.  But over two centuries of past US history tells us nothing stays the same in our economy and it has been proven over and over that when taxes get raised people lose jobs.  We have over 93 million working people (like me) out of our workforce now who used to be taxpayers because of mammoth tax increases like Obama Care, etc., and the "free trade" nonsense (NAFTA, GATT) that has run off our manufacturing base to other countries.  The plan being advanced which says get the government off the backs of small business people (read: less regulation) and lower their taxes has worked every time it has been tried. Cutting taxes will not increase the deficit, it will lower the deficit.  How?  By bringing those millions of non-working folk back to 40 hour a week jobs thereby making them tax payers and not tax money takers again.  Cut the taxes on the middle class and they will purchase more and will take greater risks like starting up a business and employing people who become taxpayers.  It's what we excelled at for 400 years on this continent and it's time to get back to that very simple way of being the most free nation in the world.

What I have tried to describe above is called a "dynamic analysis."  It's the sort of plan that gave us the "Roaring Twenties" and the solid twenty years of unparalleled growth the US experienced starting around 1984.

Thanks for reading.

Phil

Hi Phil. Happy to oblige. There may be reasons to vote for Donald but his tax and economic plans aren't the reason. Unless you are a multi-million dollar corporation or multi-millionaire.

You are parroting the typical trickle down theory.  Continue to give huge tax breaks to large corporations and the super rich and all that money will trickle down to the little people. You and me. After three decades of this "theory" failing,  I call bull shit.  One of the most significant impacts of trickle down is to increase the gap between the wealthy and middle income and shrink the middle class.

As far as your Dynamic vs. Static modeling changes Donald's plan from a $12 trillion deficit to a $10 trillion deficit. Yes. With a t
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/06/08/its-clinton-versus-trump-a-comparison-of-the-final-two-tax-plans/#69bdcc5c1c23

Compare the rise in debt by President. Guess which ones cut taxes and regulations hoping trickle down would stimulate the economy.

[albrecht]

Laws only apply to the 'little people.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/kristian-saucier-sentencing-clinton-227052

[TigerLily]

Laws only apply to the 'little people.'
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/kristian-saucier-sentencing-clinton-227052

If you aren't aware that money and influence grease the legal skids you haven't been paying attention. For years.  Which candidate is more likely to improve the situation now that we don't have Bernie?

[PKaiser]

Hi Phil. Happy to oblige. There may be reasons to vote for Donald but his tax and economic plans aren't the reason. Unless you are a multi-million dollar corporation or multi-millionaire.

You are parroting the typical trickle down theory.  Continue to give huge tax breaks to large corporations and the super rich and all that money will trickle down to the little people. You and me. After three decades of this "theory" failing,  I call bull shit.  One of the most significant impacts of trickle down is to increase the gap between the wealthy and middle income and shrink the middle class.

As far as your Dynamic vs. Static modeling changes Donald's plan from a $12 trillion deficit to a $10 trillion deficit. Yes. With a t
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2016/06/08/its-clinton-versus-trump-a-comparison-of-the-final-two-tax-plans/#69bdcc5c1c23

Compare the rise in debt by President. Guess which ones cut taxes and regulations hoping trickle down would stimulate the economy.

That theory was only tried twice: in the twenties and in 1983 and they worked spectacularly both times.

You seem to forget that the guys with the blue bars in your graph had Republican majorities in congress while the guys with the red bars had DEMOCRATS controlling the purse strings.  You need to research the false promises Tip O'Neill gave Reagan before we talk about his contribution to the debt.

And I find it howling my funny that after Obama added nine TRILLION dollars to our debt NOW progressives are suddenly worried about our debt.  Riiiiiiiight....

[Sandra Kristen]

Did someone really say our economic policy in the 20s worked spectacularly?

Holy shit.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Hillary's stools are now trending. 

[albrecht]

Did someone really say our economic policy in the 20s worked spectacularly?

Holy shit.

Um, it was. Ever heard of the "Roaring 20's?" During the post WWI decade the US became the world's richest country and the economy, even in Europe, was booming and lots of social progress (women's suffrage in many countries, even the tolerance of homosexuals at least to a great extent than before, etc.) However, the crash in 29 initiated the Great Depression. So maybe you are thinking about the 30's?

[Sandra Kristen]

Um, it was. Ever heard of the "Roaring 20's?" During the post WWI decade the US became the world's richest country and the economy, even in Europe, was booming and lots of social progress (women's suffrage in many countries, even the tolerance of homosexuals at least to a great extent than before, etc.) However, the crash in 29 initiated the Great Depression. So maybe you are thinking about the 30's?

What do you think caused the Crash

Also


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwpbCfgUmvs

[TigerLily]

That theory was only tried twice: in the twenties and in 1983 and they worked spectacularly both times.

You seem to forget that the guys with the blue bars in your graph had Republican majorities in congress while the guys with the red bars had DEMOCRATS controlling the purse strings.  You need to research the false promises Tip O'Neill gave Reagan before we talk about his contribution to the debt.

And I find it howling my funny that after Obama added nine TRILLION dollars to our debt NOW progressives are suddenly worried about our debt.  Riiiiiiiight....

Like I said if you don't care about racking up trillions more in deficit than you don't need to consider it in making your choice. As Dick Cheney said, "deficits don't matter"

Treasury Secretary O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

If you aren't aware that money and influence grease the legal skids you haven't been paying attention. For years.  Which candidate is more likely to improve the situation now that we don't have Bernie?

Leaving aside our ideological differences, after seeing videos of her at the DNC, I thoroughly respect Jill Stein and it seems she is way more honest about her political beliefs than Hillary; she is one of the few on the left willing to call out her corruption and stealing the primary from Bernie.

[albrecht]

What do you think caused the Crash

Lots of different theories on the cause, economists seem to almost never form a full consensus. I blame women suffrage though. 

[TigerLily]

Leaving aside our ideological differences, after seeing videos of her at the DNC, I thoroughly respect Jill Stein and it seems she is way more honest about her political beliefs than Hillary, and is one of the few on the left willing to call out her corruption and stealing the primary from Bernie.

Don't know if you know but I was squarely in Bernie's corner. I feel he was the only one who would be able to make transcendental changes in the government. At least he had a strong influence on the democratic platform and enough influence to ensure Hillary keeps the promises she made to him. I don't think Hillary stole the primary election. More people voted for her just like more people voted for Donald.

Jill is unprepared and lacking the experience to be President and has no chance of winning. Luckily I agree enough with Hillary's positions to feel more positive than negative about her on issues. My first vote was for Bill and I worked on his campaign.

Hillary gives me pause in many ways. But I truly believe Donald would be an unmitigated disaster for America. All of America

Edit. Hillary is blamed for giving lip service to her "beliefs" but she has a long track record of walking the walk. All the way back to first lady of Arkansas and before. Donald on the other hand ...

[bateman]

Hillary's stools are now trending. 

Check out @cernovich

[albrecht]

Don't know if you know but I was squarely in Bernie's corner. I feel he was the only one who would be able to make transcendental changes in the government. At least he had a strong influence on the democratic platform and enough influence to ensure Hillary keeps the promises she made to him. I don't think Hillary stole the primary election. More people voted for her just like more people voted for Donald.

Jill is unprepared and lacking the experience to be President and has no chance of winning. Luckily I agree enough with Hillary's positions to feel more positive than negative about her on issues. My first vote was for Bill and I worked on his campaign.

Hillary gives me pause in many ways. But I truly believe Donald would be an unmitigated disaster for America. All of America

Edit. Hillary is blamed for giving lip service to her "beliefs" but she has a long track record of walking the walk. All the way back to first lady of Arkansas and before. Donald on the other hand ...

I'm sure Trump has done some questionable deals, unfortunately that is the situation sometimes in the real world but the merger of private deals and using her government position to make so many people, including herself, so many millions and billions is really sort of shocking because only places like Clinton Cash (movie version is free on youtube) or "conspiracy" sites will touch it. Not only is she a neo-con but the 'pay for play' stuff in the poorest of the poor countries in Africa and Haiti is so amazingly cynical and I might say she (or at least the billionaires who "paid to play") are more neo-colonialists than neo-cons! So corrupt and using government office to profit (and jeopardize our national security.) From the beginnings in Arkansas (all of the famous corruption but also the less well-known- like selling the blood of prisoners that was infected with HIV and Hep-A to people around the world- Canadians and Brits were the most affected by the "Factor-8," etc to the Foundation(s) and "pay-for-pay" deals.) She has been walking the walk a long, long time.
http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bloody-awful/Content?oid=863387

[Zetaspeak]

This whole medical angle reeks of total desperation. So he's fully admitting he can't defeat her on policy, can't defeat her on personality, so trying to defeat her technicality like a medical issue says everything that needs to be said about where his campaign is right now.

Strategy wise, is this a winning way to go? He's already losing women quicker than a guy drenched in AXE body spray, I can see this being viewed by women as just another sexiest cheap shot by Trump. The one of the few demos he does well in (seniors) that also can be considered mocking them as well. Recently a poll had Trump mocking the disabled reporter was the time people were most bothered with Trump (62% a lot, 21% a little, 15% not at all) so the geniuses behind the Trump campaign and their supporters is doubling that down again.  Considering that since the convention Trump's been the Elmer Fudd, with everything he's doing backfiring.

I am actually more concerned on why Trump is so damn orange and seems to need to repeat things multiple times in a row........ MULTIPLE times in a row. 

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Check out @cernovich

Thanks, I've been following Cernovich since before it was stool.

[Jackstar]

Check out @Darren32895836's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Darren32895836/status/765723534790234112

[TigerLily]

I'm sure Trump has done some questionable deals, unfortunately that is the situation sometimes in the real world but the merger of private deals and using her government position to make so many people, including herself, so many millions and billions is really sort of shocking because only places like Clinton Cash (movie version is free on youtube) or "conspiracy" sites will touch it. Not only is she a neo-con but the 'pay for play' stuff in the poorest of the poor countries in Africa and Haiti is so amazingly cynical and I might say she (or at least the billionaires who "paid to play") are more neo-colonialists than neo-cons! So corrupt and using government office to profit (and jeopardize our national security.) From the beginnings in Arkansas (all of the famous corruption but also the less well-known- like selling the blood of prisoners that was infected with HIV and Hep-A to people around the world- Canadians and Brits were the most affected by the "Factor-8," etc to the Foundation(s) and "pay-for-pay" deals.) She has been walking the walk a long, long time.
http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/bloody-awful/Content?oid=863387

Sorry albrecht.

Saying Donald's business practices are "questionable" and perfectly ok, but Hillary is the anti-Christ  is bad enough. But when people start citing conspiracy theories and debunked books as "evidence"... not interested. Just the facts, man

For example: "The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case."

[albrecht]

Sorry albrecht.

Saying Donald's business practices are "questionable" and perfectly ok, but Hillary is the anti-Christ  is bad enough. But when people start citing conspiracy theories and debunked books as "evidence"... not interested. Just the facts, man

"The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case."

The same DOJ that prosecutes people who did less than Hillary with regard to security rules and laws? Yeah, I would expect a political DOJ to really go after her! I'm sure the IRS is also running audit on their Foundation(s.)  Different laws for different folks, I guess.

"Right-wing" news sources like the BBC, Slate, and the NY Times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/4758667.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/02/marc_rich_presidential_pardon_how_eric_holder_facilitated_the_most_unjust.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html
http://projects.nytimes.com/clinton-donors/page/5
http://projects.nytimes.com/clinton-donors/page/2
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ (Search around, some fun stuff)
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?file=mp3 (read here about how your guy Sanders, new owner of some NICE properties, was treated by the DNC and Clintonistas during the DNC selection process.)

[Sandra Kristen]

The same DOJ that prosecutes people who did less than Hillary with regard to security rules and laws? Yeah, I would expect a political DOJ to really go after her! I'm sure the IRS is also running audit on their Foundation(s.)  Different laws for different folks, I guess.

"Right-wing" news sources like the BBC, Slate, and the NY Times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/4758667.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/02/marc_rich_presidential_pardon_how_eric_holder_facilitated_the_most_unjust.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html
http://projects.nytimes.com/clinton-donors/page/5
http://projects.nytimes.com/clinton-donors/page/2
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/ (Search around, some fun stuff)
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?file=mp3 (read here about how your guy Sanders, new owner of some NICE properties, was treated by the DNC and Clintonistas during the DNC selection process.)

Wow, they even use the term "pay to play!" I haven't watched any news today but I'm sure the mainstream media, especially CNN, thoroughly covered it. 

excerpt from the email:

"Can we set up a time for a very brief call to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters? Want to make sure we have a robust process in place to make sure that donations that come in from those donors, in any form, get put into the operating account."

Jordan is still laughing

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

This whole medical angle reeks of total desperation. So he's fully admitting he can't defeat her on policy, can't defeat her on personality, so trying to defeat her technicality like a medical issue says everything that needs to be said about where his campaign is right now.

Strategy wise, is this a winning way to go? He's already losing women quicker than a guy drenched in AXE body spray, I can see this being viewed by women as just another sexiest cheap shot by Trump. The one of the few demos he does well in (seniors) that also can be considered mocking them as well. Recently a poll had Trump mocking the disabled reporter was the time people were most bothered with Trump (62% a lot, 21% a little, 15% not at all) so the geniuses behind the Trump campaign and their supporters is doubling that down again.  Considering that since the convention Trump's been the Elmer Fudd, with everything he's doing backfiring.

I am actually more concerned on why Trump is so damn orange and seems to need to repeat things multiple times in a row........ MULTIPLE times in a row. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWYi5WFIC58

[albrecht]

Jordan is still laughing

I'm sure he is, he got really rich and like the Clintons with plenty of scandals avoided (for the most part.)

[Sandra Kristen]

I'm sure he is, he got really rich and like the Clintons with plenty of scandals avoided (for the most part.)

But she knows what Pay to Play is.

[Zetaspeak]

Glad you brought that up Humilia. I also thought that was a crummy thing to do. McCain was a POW, he earned that right to have some wear and tear. Than again McCain was always one of my favorite Republicans, until he got Palinized. I would have considered pretty hard to vote for him in 2000 over Gore if he won the nomination.

For me as long as your mind is sharp, that's what matters most. I don't think that attack on McCain did much difference, I think 8 years of GWB, the economic downturn and the odd pick of VP is what done him in more than anything on the negative side.

[albrecht]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWYi5WFIC58

Health records etc have been used countless times. I think there have been a lot of cheap shots (Eagleton and worse the treatment of a real hero Stockdale- remember how the media poked fun at him? And he was a real hero.) But, then again, it is a legitimate concern and Billary "started it" by claiming a "bump on the head" for delaying testifying on her gun running scheme and cover-up. She "opened the door," as Perry might say in court so. Also her "war on women" over the decades from laughing about getting a child rapist off a charge to "bimbo eruption" cover-ups etc. So, to me, if the government, via Obamacare and the database, wants to know all about our healthcare and history the politicians should also be open with theirs. Drug test them all and release their health records (like Obamacare etc physical and mental records tracking database) and prescription history.

[WOTR]

My all-time favorite political radio host called this election a year ago. The High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth, Neal Boortz (whom, btw, can not STAND Drumpf, as he used to do legal work for him. Called him the biggest asshole he`s ever met, and he`s met plenty).

You do realize that for a certain number of people, that "warning" is actually an endorsement?  "We" have let other nations and other people walk all over "us" for too long and we need a "real" man in the white house who is not afraid to upset others and cave into international pressures...

[WOTR]

... For example: "The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case."

So it all comes down to two candidates.  We excuse the one because "he is a businessman, and of course he completely lacks morals and screws people over... It's to be expected."  And the other one we are now excusing because "there was insufficient evidence to open a case". No longer do we want a candidate who has not been investigated multiple times by the FBI- No longer do we want a man with integrity.

I keep reading that you should vote for Trump because "at least he is not Hillary."  Then I hear that you should vote for Hillary because "at least she is not Trump."

Overall, it is just a very sad time to consider the immediate future and ask how, exactly, we arrived at this place.

[TigerLily]

So it all comes down to two candidates.  We excuse the one because "he is a businessman, and of course he completely lacks morals and screws people over... It's to be expected."  And the other one we are now excusing because "there was insufficient evidence to open a case". No longer do we want a candidate who has not been investigated multiple times by the FBI- No longer do we want a man with integrity.

I keep reading that you should vote for Trump because "at least he is not Hillary."  Then I hear that you should vote for Hillary because "at least she is not Trump."

Overall, it is just a very sad time to consider the immediate future and ask how, exactly, we arrived at this place.

I blame Citizens United.   Whichever candidate wins will be the least liked and trusted President ever.  The oligarchs have won.

[Jackstar]

So it all comes down to two candidates.

You're basically the problem.