Hillary Clinton

Watch Hillary Clinton Say: "Don't let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs."

|

Photo credit: Angela Radulescu / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Here is what Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president, said yesterday while speaking at a campaign event for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley:

"Don't let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people ask him what he brought to Washington, he says I brought arithmetic."

Watch the video: 

Well, that settles it. Corporations and businesses don't create jobs. And everyone knows it. It's basic math. And who can argue with math? 

NEXT: New York, New Jersey Impose 21-Day Quarantine on West African Travelers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Isn’t she muddling two different concepts here (trickle down theory is false and “you didn’t build that”)? I’m not even sure what she was thinking when she says corporations don’t create jobs. It seems like political discussion has become or maybe always has been just shouting jingos and references.

    1. Corporation don’t create jobs politicians do.

      You didn’t build dat, I did.

      She’s managed to out Obama Barack.

      1. She’s trying to outflank 2016 Dem nominee Lizzie Warren

        1. Bingo.

          And in doing so, I hope she establishes such an outrageous track record of communist rhetoric that she buries her presidential chances.

          1. She’s well on her way. There’s no way she survives this sound bite. Anytime she thinks on her feet, she does something breathtakingly stupid.

            I look forward to more of it.

            1. There’s no way she survives this sound bite.

              In a rational world, yes. But we live in a nation stupid enough to elect Barack Obama twice.

              1. What difference, at this point, does it make?

            2. This seemed scripted, not like she was thinking on her feet.

              I think her health is going to be more of an issue than many think.

              1. That’s the first time I’ve watched her, or almost any politician, speak in decades. Her little pause there looked like a momentary brain fart, the kind I get once in a while when rambling on and not paying attention, where anything else momentarily diverts my attention and I forget for a few seconds what the heck I am doing.

                If she does that kind of thing very often, she’s going to provide a lot more sound bites for her opponents.

                I don’t think it’s dementia, more like she’s just on auto-pilot and taking her crowd for granted.

            3. *Cue millions of people supporting her for ‘standing up to the little guy’.

            4. Well if private enterprise doesn’t create jobs and government does, then hasn’t big government including the administration she just served in just failed spectacularly???

              1. Obviously it’s not big enough.

                1. Nothing that a few more trillion in tax dollars, and a dozen or so more bureaucracies with matching czars can’t take care of.

            5. There’s no way she survives this sound bite.

              “I think it’s better if you spread the wealth around.”

              “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

              “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business ? you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

              Yeah, there’s no way anybody could get elected after saying something like that…

          2. I don’t know about that. Communism makes intuitive sense, while the free market does not.

            The free market means a few people get rich while everyone else is poor. Goods and services are not distributed fairly, and everyone is unequal. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It’s enough to make someone angry.

            Communism means no one gets rich since the people own all the means of production. Goods and services are distributed fairly by top men, and everyone is equal. It feels good.

            Being that people are taught to emote, not think, communist rhetoric is actually quite appealing to many people.

            1. Communism makes intuitive sense, while the free market does not.

              This. Progressivism has an emotional appeal. People see that the world is unfair and the knee jerk reaction is “Let’s pass laws to change reality.”

              Libertarian thought is counter-intuitive – maybe even to the point of qualifying as a paradox.

              Libertarians need to start working on a better propaganda machine, and by propaganda I don’t mean tricking people into supporting libertarian thought. We need to work on our communication.

              1. Thing is, thinking is hard. It really is. While emoting is easy. Libertarianism has no emotional appeal at all. Zero. Zippo. Nada. You’re not going to persuade emotional people with the libertarian message. That’s why progressives will always win.

                1. Ayn Rand books? Lots of emoting there.

                2. Libertarianism has no emotional appeal at all

                  Not true. The beauty of it when understood is quite an emotional experience. It’s the same with math. People who truly understand it to a high level (I’m not one of them) get very emotional about it. The concept of libertarianism has the same effect on me. The thing is, you have to actually grasp the concept, and it’s out of logical reach for most of the population.

              2. I agree, though I would go farther, and will repeat here what I often say: we didn’t get into the semi-socialist mess we’re in now because the Socialist Party won elections. We got here because socialists worked incrementally, compromised, and got their ideas into the Democratic Party (and the schools and the media). So working incrementally (“Fabian libertarianism”) and turning the Republican Party more libertarian is probably a better strategy than trying to elect Libertarians.

                And I say that as someone who often does vote Libertarian.

                Pure libertarianism is just too extreme and scary for most people. So just as socialists didn’t succeed by convincing voters to “nationalize the means of production,” we won’t convince enough people to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. However, reforming them in a libertarian direction is very possible. In fact, the failure of Obamacare is a great opportunity. We should come up with a “reform” (not “repeal”) of it that basically guts it and unleashes market forces on health care.

                1. There’s something to be said about working your way into the system as a ‘stealth’ ideologue. Didn’t exactly work out for her but it’s funny to bring up when people complain about the lack of women in the Supreme Court.

                2. Agreed. One of my few religious heros was Martin Luther(part of my handle). He remained a member of the Catholic Church after nailing the 95 theses on the cathedral door in the hopes of reforming it of it’s shameless selling of indulgences and irrational superstitions and empty rituals. Of course, that didn’t quite pan out, but it did start the Protestant reformation which led to a more practical and rational way of viewing the world.

                  I’m not saying it was perfect. There’s a reason I left the church nearly a decade ago. But without Luther the Enlightenment Era that birthed Libertarians may have been birthed much later and appear very, very different.

                  1. I always thought your handle was a Warhammer 40k reference.

                    1. Warhammer 40k has characters with those names? Well I’ll be damned. Had no idea.

                      No. Back in my youth I wasted a lot of time pondering the condition of my soul. I came across a book about Luther called the Bondage of the Will. It basically was a summary of his life( I won’t bore you). Inside is a series of letters between Erasmus, a Dutch writer/humanist/social critic, ect..ect.. and Luther about the purity of thought and reasoning of their vewpoints about religion and human nature. Private letters between two brilliant men is always a good read.

                      Give Erasmus’ Praise of Folly a read one day. Five hundred years later, it’s still relevant to society. He does a great job of shitting on everybody, from peasant to priest to prince.

              3. What’s wrong with tricking people to support libertarian thought?

            2. Communism makes no goddamned sense at all. At least not to anybody with an even passing acquaintance with the behavior of actual humans. Communism may work for ants (although anybody who is willing to be a worker ant is screwed in the head, and people who are willing to be a queen ant aren’t a whole lot better), but we are social apes. We can cooperate, for a time, under clear authority, but eventually squabbles will break out over the pecking order, and there WILL be a pecking order. Nobody who thinks Communism could ever work for humans has spent any time watching chimps interact.

              1. Communism makes no goddamned sense at all.

                But it feels right! Everyone is equal! The people own the means of production! No greed-heads getting rich by ripping off the workers and their customers! Top men directing the means of production eliminate scarcity! From each according to their ability and to each according to their need! Everyone working together! Paradise!

                1. Nobody but a few saints and idiots (but I repeat myself) thinks everyone is equal. People should be held equal before the Law, but that’s a subset.

                  Nobody who reads enough history believes in Top Men in permenant positions. Real Top Men would go mad with boredom.

                  I’m all for the workers owning the means of production, if they will make the effort to build them. Worder owned businesses often do very very well. But a lot of people are bone idle. I know I am.

              2. ‘Actual human behaviour’ goes out the window when you think humans can be molded into different beings. There’s a reason why idealists lean so heavily on the ‘nurture’ part of the ‘nature vs. nuture’ debate.

            3. “I don’t know about that. Communism makes intuitive sense, while the free market does not.”

              You keep saying that, and I have a sense that you may be right, but personally it makes no sense to me. Quite the opposite is true for me and always has been.

              1. Anyone who actually pays attention to and accepts the reality of human nature will immediately see communism for the ultimate fail that it is. It is the people who deny human nature or idiotically think they can actually change it that fall for the stupidity that is communism.

                In other words, retards believe in communism.

                1. …and a lot of people fall within the “retarded” section of the bell curve.

                  1. Oddly, many of the with expensive educations. Kimda shows the objective value of high SATs.

            4. Communism Economic creationism makes intuitive sense, while the free market economic evolution does not.

              FTFY

      2. They couldn’t create them if the government didn’t ALLOW them to, so technically the government created them. derpity derpity.

    2. “John L.|10.25.14 @ 1:15PM|#

      Isn’t she muddling two different concepts here (trickle down theory is false and “you didn’t build that”)?”

      Is it really important whether the concepts are ‘muddled’ when the people you’re talking to couldn’t pass high school economics?

      As far as the “has become” or “always been” question = I believe there is a measurable decline in the substance of our ‘national discourse’ (to borrow a phrase from the proggy set) particularly when it comes to basic economics. The anti-capitalist lingo has become so de rigeur that it is taken for granted that ‘corporations’ and business are inherently exploitative and promoting of ‘inequality’…

      ….whereas Sugar Daddy Government is *sustainable* and shit.

      I assume it all stems from some deep rooted zero-sum economic concepts. How else could anyone say that the solution our global problems is ‘less consumption’?

      The more i think about how pervasive this thinking is, it horrifies me.

      1. I’ll admit that the idea of ever expanding production does seem dubious. People have very little conception of just how goddamned BIG the world is. You tell them that if the world population was willing to live at the density of New York City, then everybody would fit into the state of Texas, and they can’t take it in.

        Yes, there must be, at some point, an upper limit. There isn’t really a whole lot of evidence that it’s coming soon. Start terraforming Mars now (which we could; I mean all we need to do to start hit Mars with a payload. Done that). And f*cking RELAX. We’ll find new resources, open new territories. and evidence strongly suggests that at some level of prosperity the population will stabilize.

        Providing we don’t let the would-be “Planners” screw things up.

        1. Tell it to Malthus

          People at the beginning of the 20th century bemoaned the end of history because the end of readily-available natural resources seemed around the corner.

          The part people fail to understand is that mankind’s ability to multiply the utility of the things around us through *added value*. The zero sum concept is that value/resources are static.

          this ‘upper limit‘ you speak of keeps getting farther and farther ahead

          Funny, that

          1. p.s. I’m not so much responding to you so much as the view you summarize and argue against yourself

            1. Gotcha. No prob.

    3. She’s not thinking anything. She’s not saying anything. She’s just mouthing the buzzwords that are on her list. And believe me, her fans love it.

      1. It never ceases to amaze me that these shrill Democrat harridans have so much of a following? They are, so many of them, phantasmagorically unattractive. And not just in a sexual sense; they grimace, they shriek, they preach (in the worst sense of the word), they act like the very worst kind of third grade schoolmarm. Why the hell does anybody LIKE them?

        1. Never underestimate the appeal of her message: “I’m going to give you everything you want, and somebody else is going to pay for it.”

  2. I’m assuming a stork brings them, then?

    1. A public sector union stork, yes.

  3. “he says I brought arithmetic.”

    And now, when I add the sum of you and me
    I get confused and I keep comin’ up with three

    1. “Look man, at least I balanced the budget.”

    2. +1 Withers

  4. WDATPDIM?

  5. Pandering to the stupid vote. Hey, she was campaigning for Coakley – is there anyone but the stupid that are going to vote for her?

    1. Coakley is truly a gifted politician. How stupid must you be to lose twice running as a Democrat in Massachusetts ! The odds must be astronomically impossible.

  6. “Businesses don’t create jobs”…. Not that we all didn’t know this already but she’s offically a bigger dumb ass than before.

    1. And you’re an equally big dumbass for agreeing with her retarded claim that businesses don’t create jobs.

      1. Reading comprehension fail.

  7. Free Shit Party!

    1. Free Shit Party!

      1. Free Shit Party!

        1. Free Shit Party!

  8. I hope she stays on this jag, and the ‘war on women’.
    These ideas are pretty unpopular with most people.

    1. Define most.

      Then again I live in Brooklyn, so…

  9. So, arithmetic is now a euphemism?

    1. It is when it disagrees with “feelings”

      1. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

  10. As Youtube user Faith Coleridge said: “Did she hit her head on the toilet again? You know the scary part? Listen to the taker class audience. They believe it. They eat this sh*t up.”?

    More frightning and a bit off-topic is this article from the American Thinker titled “FEC in push to regulate political speech on the internet”.

    1. The FEC argument for that is pretty funny. You see, many of these internet ads are “slickly produced,” so they should be regulated. (What, you’ve forgotten the Slickly Produced Exception to the First Amendment?)

      1. It comes right after the “too much money spent on ads” exception, or is it before?

    2. The proggies are chomping at the bit to be rid of the first amendment. They can’t stand that anyone would disagree with them and openly say so.

      I am sure if they are ever successful there will be no regrets. No way that would bite them in the ass.

      1. If the progressives ever do manage to bring about the all encompassing State they dream of my one consolation is going to be watching them get liquidated by whatever brute pushes them to the side, Stalin-style. OH, how they’ll moan and whine then.

  11. How can businesses and corporations create jobs while they’re getting rich off all those immoral profits? Obviously they’re not creating jobs, because if they did then they wouldn’t be rich. All they are creating is inequality. Those immoral profits could be used to create jobs, which is why government needs to tax them all away. Then there will be some job creation, once those rich businesses and corporations are relieved of their immoral profits and pay their fair share.

    1. But what do Millenials think?

      1. Good point. Someone should do a poll.

      2. 35% disagree with Hillary so clearly the liberty moment is at hand.

      3. DO millennials think?

        1. In the same way a school of fish does

    2. Consumption is production. Regulation is freedom. Mandates are markets. And taxing people is the only way to make them wealthy.

    3. sarcasmic|10.25.14 @ 1:32PM|#
      Then there will be some job creation, once those rich businesses and corporations are relieved of their immoral profits and pay their fair share.

      I know most conservatives on this site will disagree with this because, “poor people are poor because they are not as smart as us conseratives and why should we help them”. Hilary is right and your post is spot on. Here is why:

      Wall Street banks handed out $26.7 billion in bonuses to their 165,200 employees last year. That amount would be enough to more than double the pay for all 1,085,000 Americans who work full-time at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour…
      All those dollars low-wage workers spend create an economic ripple effect. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of low-wage workers, standard economic multiplier models tell us, adds about $1.21 to the national economy. Every extra dollar going into the pockets of a high-income American, by contrast, only adds about 39 cents to the GDP.

      This perfectly captures the immortality and excess of wall street and proves that not only can we double the minimum wage but it would also be a boon for the economy.

      1. You do realize that that post of mine was a sargasm, right?

        1. *sargasm = sarcasm + orgasm*

        2. You need to trust in yourself. Don’t back down now because other people on this site were mocking your comment. Most of these people just go along with the crowd and repeat the republican talking points without actually thinking about what they are saying.

          You were right and the facts back that up.

          1. Clearly you have a solid grasp on the jello of “Economic multipliers”, and a mature knowledge of how ‘valuable’ unskilled labor is relative to people in upper echelons of finance.

            1. Finance is just a fancy word for theft. Just as “budgeting” and “debt” are fancy words for “stingy”. You dog-whistler you.

              1. Taxes are a fancy word for “Protection Racket”

            2. GILMORE|10.25.14 @ 2:20PM|#

              Clearly you have a solid grasp on the jello of “Economic multipliers”, and a mature knowledge of how ‘valuable’ unskilled labor is relative to people in upper echelons of finance.

              Yes, and your glib, unsourced rebuttal has devastated my solid and sourced argument

              1. Your “solid and sourced argument” ignores the well-known negative effects of heavy taxes and redistributive policies. It’s also like the silly argument that “We could cure cancer if we spent on research what we spend on pizza” (or whatever). So how do you implement that exactly? Ban pizza and tax everyone an equivalent amount, and then spend that money on research? In your case, what? Tax Wall Street bonuses at 100%, assume Wall Street will continue paying them anyway, and then send checks to everyone making minimum wage? Or cap Wall Street salaries? Or what?

                You are just in a fantasy land where economic laws can be changed like clothing or furniture. Unfortunately, economics does not work that way. By and large, people get paid according to what their labor is worth. A Wall Street bank employee is more valuable than a burger-flipper, and their pay reflects that. Deal with it. If you want wages at the low end to rise, then restricting the importation of low-end labor makes more sense.

              2. Yes, and your glib, unsourced rebuttal has devastated my solid and sourced argument

                Umm, all you REALLY said is that lower-income people consume a higher percentage of their income than high income people. (gasp)

                Where’s YOUR source? Can you handle 7th grade arithmetic?

                Liberals are convinced … convinced .. . that new factories spring from the ground like weeds, filled with new machinery. (for new jobs)

                Now you start a business. And learn. Invest $250,000. Hire 35 employees and start manufacturing. After one week, all your employees get paid. FROM WHERE? Where do their wages come from?

                You’ve already lost. Now let’s see how badly. Two weeks later, products are delivered and invoiced. Workers paid every week. You still have NOTHING.

                A month later, you finally receive revenue. Your workers got paid every Friday for seven weeks, with money from where? From capital! And you STILL have no profit.

                You tell me. For at least a year, on average, you’re paying wages, rent, utilities …with what? From where do you pay a year of worker wages ?

                Yes, (some) liberals are precisely that gullible. No better than Birthers.

                Any questions?

                1. Michael Hihn|10.25.14 @ 3:55PM|#

                  Now you start a business. And learn. Invest $250,000. Hire 35 employees and start manufacturing. After one week, all your employees get paid. FROM WHERE? Where do their wages come from?

                  The workers should share in the profits. That is how I would pay them. They are the ones creating value.

                  1. Wow, just wow. I’m done, can’t take the stupidity of proggies anymore.

                  2. The workers should share in the profits. That is how I would pay them.

                    I hope you heard a whooshing sound around the time that you posted this.

                  3. “The workers should share in the profits. That is how I would pay them. They are the ones creating value.”

                    Really? So the ‘profits’ that you could have invested opening up another store (and ‘creating more jobs’)… they will instead instead go to helping your employees blow their income on higher-grade consumables?…

                    and you call that more economically ‘productive’?

                  4. The workers should share in the profits. That is how I would pay them. They are the ones creating value

                    (lol) Read it again! There are no profits! You haven’t shipped anything, sent a single invoice or collected a penny of receivables. Every penny in your business is your own capita. So where do the wages come from? The rent, the machinery, the utilities and all the rest.

                    Are you also a Birther?

                  5. Who the fuck is this idiot, blind?

                    1. Who the fuck is this idiot, blind?

                      Confirmed proglodyte troll. Most likely friend of Micheal Hinn, King of the Luddites.

              3. “Yes, and your glib, unsourced rebuttal”

                Because redistribution of resources is the path to macroeconomic efficiency. Right.

                You’re wrapping a very basic, idiotic idea in some bullshit terms and declaring it ‘scientific’. You don’t even understand this bullshit ‘multipliers’ stuff yourself, which is probably why you feel so comfortable citing it

                (*”If I don’t understand something, its likely no one else does either, so VICTORY THROUGH ECONOBABBLE!”)

                Its just more pretending that some top down system can more-efficiently allocate capital than the marketplace

                Burger flippers might spend all their earned income money; sure. This is simply like arguing that if the population were ALL burger flippers, why, then everyone would be spending ALL their money, and OH MY GOD LOOK AT THAT GDP!!

                This “GDP” is simply money moved from a productive sector into an unproductive one. So it gets ‘spent’. On what? Burgers for everyone? Higher tax base?

                ie. the argument seems to think that ‘monkeying higher GDP by impoverishing the most productive segments of the economy’ is logical.

                1. GILMORE|10.25.14 @ 4:15PM|#

                  ie. the argument seems to think that ‘monkeying higher GDP by impoverishing the most productive segments of the economy’ is logical.

                  From my @ 3:56PM post:

                  These pennies add up considerably on $26.7 billion in earnings. If the $26.7 billion Wall Streeters pulled in on bonuses in 2013 had gone to minimum wage workers instead, our GDP would have grown by about $32.3 billion, over triple the $10.4 billion boost expected from the Wall Street bonuses.

                  GDP U.S. = 16,244,600 (millions)
                  GDP Somalia = 1,306

                  Yeah, I will take the economy with the higher GDP, thank you very much. You can live in your libertarian paradise.

                  1. libertarian anarchist paradise

                    FTFY

                    Somalia is not a libertarian country. The people that take the time to vomit this obvious untruth are the same people that rode the short bus to school.

                  2. I’m sure there’s no ‘cost’ associated with the idea of taking money from peter to pay (in theory) the ‘minimum wager’ (who is, as frequently noted, *not who people think they are*)

                    because giving billions to “temporary workers 16-19yrs old” means a better economy, somehow?

                    Your argument is basically one to ‘create jobs for federal wage-thieves’, not to enrich poor kiddies.

                    1. Let’s follow the dollars.

                      McDonalds pays more to their minimum wage workers, and increases prices to offset. Simple math says McDonalds customers can buy less “stuff” at the higher prices. So McDonalds needs fewer workers, and lays off some of the workers.

                      That’s how the jobs disappear. T

                      hen it gets tricky. It is true, more workers have higher wages than workers who are laid off, so that looks like a net gain for “society”. (if we ignore individuals)

                      Who gets laid off? Guess.
                      Mostly young, black males.

                      Now assume, just for illustration, that the workers with higher wages eat all their meals at, let’s say Wendy’s. Wendy’s also had to increase wages, lay off workers and increase prices.

                      See it yet?

                      The now-higher-paid McDonald’s workers can afford … exactly the same amount of stuff at Wendy’s, as before.

                      Follow the dollars and the workers with raises cannot buy any more than they did before the increase. (It doesn’t balance so perfectly in the real world.)

                      So most McDonalds workers are exactly where they were in purchasing power. Other McDonald’s workers are now on welfare. Nobody is any better off then they were, some workers are worse off (also taxpayers).

                      But Democrats claim credit for improving the working poor. And Barack Obama destroys opportunities for more … young black males.

                      Neat, eh?

                  3. I propose a new rule: every time some libertarian critic conflates libertarian ideas with “Somalia,” libertarians declare victory.

                    1. We’d be shouting “Victory!” so much we’d never get anything done.

                  4. Yeah, I will take the economy with the higher GDP, thank you very much.

                    You’ll NEVER learn what that is as long as all your sources are partisan. In high school you’ll be taught about the importance of original sources. Without that you’re just another ideologue.

                    Consider a day in the sunlight, outside of your partisan echo chamber.

                    For example, see how I demolished your bullshit video, entirely with original and official sources?

                  5. “Yeah, I will take the economy with the higher GDP, thank you very much. You can live in your libertarian paradise”

                    Ever notice that proggie tards always, always use failed socialist states as examples of libertopia?

                    I mean, that’s some pro level derptology to take the U.S.’s GDP that was built on a (mostly) free market over the last hundred years, give the credit to central planning, and then compare it to a failed state that had a soviet style economic system. Brav-fucking-o.

                    1. No crazier than the libertarian view of libertopia.

          2. Your name suits you perfectly. I’m thinking this is just trolling or some sort of prank.

              1. Sorry sarc, he bonded with you. Now you have to care for him and clean up after him.

                1. I see ass-wiping in his immediate future.

            1. My name is in the same vein as “justice is blind”. The name is my attempt to exhibit to fellow posters that I approach their comments without prejudice and bias. I will evaluate their posts strictly based on their content and not on the fashions of the day.

              1. OK, this is pretty good trolling. Way better than our usual shit. Keep it up, I’d like to see more.

              2. So. . . .why couldn’t you be bothered to capitalize the B?

                1. e.e. cummings fan?

                2. This isn’t someone who appreciates Capitalism.

                  1. ^^ Threadwinner!

              3. I will evaluate their posts strictly based on their content and not on the fashions of the day.

                Umm, then why did you run away from the question — how do you pay worker wages. when profits won’t exist for typically a year?

                You know, right, that we cannot share profits that do not exist? Keep proving me right about you people — you believe that factories spring from the ground like weeds, fully equipped to start providing jobs.

                Umm, how do the workers get paid who built the factory and all the machinery in it, since YOU insist nobody had to pay for the business startup?

                Or that bullshit about FDR??

              4. Only an intellectually “blind” person could declare themselves free of prejudice.

                1. Only an intellectually “blind” person could declare themselves free of prejudice

                  http://www.merriam-webster.com…../prejudice

            2. A lot of misconception comes from focusing on the $ rather than on goods & services.

      2. You should move to Europe if you want that. Otherwise, fuck off.

        1. Pl?ya Manhattan.|10.25.14 @ 2:13PM|#

          You should move to Europe if you want that. Otherwise, fuck off.

          No, I think I will stay here and continue to speak out against income inequality. Maybe you should move to Europe. Not too long ago, in the 1930s, they had a whole country that shared your beliefs.

          1. I like it when stupid is right out in the open where it belongs.

            It’s a real time saver.

            1. Pl?ya Manhattan.|10.25.14 @ 2:37PM|#

              I like it when stupid is right out in the open where it belongs.

              Says the guy who thinks exclaiming, “America, love it or leave it!” is a winning argument.

              1. Put words in his mouth.

                Blatant lies will get you everywhere with this crowd, blind.

                1. Pl?ya Manhattan.|10.25.14 @ 2:13PM|#

                  You should move to Europe if you want that.

                  I think I surmised the thrust of his argument quite accurately. Not even close to a blatant lie. Read my @ 2:31PM comment. I seek the truth.

                  1. “I think I surmised the thrust of his argument quite accurately”

                    Possibly, but you attributed a quote to him that he never made.

                    “America, love it or leave it!”

                    So, lie more, it’ll get you far.

                    “Read my @ 2:31PM comment. ”

                    blind is Bo, who is whatever regular decides he needs to troll up a thread now and then.

                    1. fuck you Belinda Carlisle|10.25.14 @ 5:23PM|#

                      So, lie more, it’ll get you far.

                      My statement was not a lie. It wasn’t even misleading. Pl?ya Manhattan.’s post was right above mine. I think you are just trying to smear my name so you and others can dismiss my arguments without having to actually address the specifics.

                    2. “My statement was not a lie”

                      “Possibly, but you attributed a quote to him that he never made.”

                      What part of that isn’t a lie?

                      Right, you lied. And now you’re upset about getting caught.

                    3. And you’re obviously bo, it’s fucking pathetic, go away.

                    4. fuck you Belinda Carlisle|10.25.14 @ 6:17PM|#

                      “Possibly, but you attributed a quote to him that he never made.

                      Bullshit. He did not exclaim anything. That is obvious. My statement was hyberbole.

                      go away.

                      You are the one who responded to my comment.

                    5. “You are the one who responded to my comment.”

                      Yes, bo I am.

                      To tell you to go the fuck away.

                      Now go boy.

                    6. “My statement was hyberbole.”

                      Sure liar.

                    7. fuck you Belinda Carlisle|10.25.14 @ 6:34PM|#

                      To tell you to go the fuck away.

                      No, your first couple of posts contained nothing regarding me “going away”. I guess that makes you a liar. Since you are a liar then all of your past statements are suspect in regards to their accuracy. Therefore, I am not a liar.

          2. National Socialism was pretty down with the idea of confiscating the wealth of the bankers and distributing the loot to the common Volk. It ended pretty badly.

            1. Calvin Coolidge|10.25.14 @ 2:37PM|#

              National Socialism was pretty down with the idea of confiscating the wealth of the bankers and distributing the loot to the common Volk. It ended pretty badly.

              And unchecked capitalism is what led to National Socialism. Europe seems to have learned from their mistakes and now implement a healthy balance of socialism and capitalism. We need a balanced mixed economy similar to theirs.

              1. And unchecked capitalism is what led to National Socialism.

                Right on! That free market that lacks government control over everything leads to government control over everything! Keeping the government out of the economy results in the government controlling the economy! We need to give the government more power so it can control the corporations that control it! The government is the people, so if the government has more power then the people have more power! And when the government controls the corporations that control it, then the people will control the corporations! Except that the corporations control the government! But more power to the government won’t be more power to the corporations that control it, it will be power to the people!

              2. Brilliant! Unfettered capitalism leads the socialism thus we must temper capitalism with socialism to avoid socialism. Bravo blind, bravo.

                1. sarcasmic|10.25.14 @ 3:27PM|#
                  Keeping the government out of the economy results in the government controlling the economy!

                  The Hyperbole|10.25.14 @ 3:27PM|#

                  Brilliant! Unfettered capitalism leads the socialism thus we must temper capitalism with socialism to avoid socialism.

                  Yes, lets just ignore the rampant inflation and systemic unemployment in 1920s Germany. Let us also ignore the Great Depression in the U.S. and how the New Deal got us out of it.

                  So, if we ignore reality then yes, your attempted mockery makes perfect sense.

                  1. Let us also ignore the Great Depression in the U.S. and how the New Deal got us out of it.

                    What was that year of the glorious recovery at the hands of the great slant eyed imprisioner?

                    1. I know I am watching a scholarly video when the author claims that one person can claim success for the next 50 years disregarding any developments.
                      Nice video I love of the little I watched the guy avoids talking about the 30s.

                      If the New Deal was so great tell me the reason FDR canceled parts and let others expire? Why was the unemployment rate unchanged during most of his reign and unresponsive to the New Deal?

                    2. Actually a video clearly demonstrates that it was actually President Roosevelt’s progressive economic programs that he began in 1932

                      (laughing)
                      1) Roosevelt took office in 1933
                      2) The “recession” was over without a dime of “stimulus” (like the recent one, nobody knew that until too late.)
                      3) The New Deal was as useless as Obama’s New New Deal. The NAME “Great Depression” described FDR’s “recovery.
                      4) Unemployment never fell below 15% in eight years of recovery

                      I’ll trump your video with official dates for our business cycle since the 1800s. See a “trough” (the end) in March 1933. You’ve been brainwashed,

                      they helped us create the biggest and most vibrant middle class in history.

                      (Laughing harder) The “postwar boom at 91% tax rates was actually five back-to-back recessions in only 16 years … until Kennedy repealed those tax rates…

                      JFK’s first SOTU stated that we had collapsed to “among the worst” in economic growth … until he repealed FDR’s disaster. We came out of WWII with the only industrial base still standing, and soon fell to the bottom with FDR’s taxes!

                      Here’s the official business cycle dates.

                      http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

                      JFK’s own voice and words on the massive FAILURE of postwar economy. Hear it all.

                      http://bit.ly/1c9HQB3

                      Who do we believe, you or John Kennedy?

                    3. Thanks for the much more thorough response. Cooking and commenting on Reason do not go together.

                    4. Oh god no! Not a video! I am struck blind, deaf, and dumb by the magnificence of these arguments!

                      I’m typing by feel, though.

                  2. I feel as if you’ve failed one or more history classes.

                    I shudder in horror at the thought of your grade-point average.

                  3. Let us also ignore the Great Depression in the U.S. and how the New Deal got us out of it.

                    How many times must I document blind’s wacky falsehoods?

                    1) Roosevelt took office in 1933
                    2) The “recession” was over without a dime of “stimulus”
                    3) The New Deal was as useless as Obama’s New New Deal. The NAME “Great Depression” described FDR’s “recovery.
                    4) Unemployment never fell below 15% in eight years of recovery

                    I’ll trump your video with official dates for our business cycle since the 1800s. See a “trough” (the end) in March 1933. You’ve been brainwashed,

                    they helped us create the biggest and most vibrant middle class in history.

                    (Laughing harder) The “postwar boom at 91% tax rates was actually five back-to-back recessions in only 16 years … until Kennedy repealed FDR’s tax rates…

                    JFK’s first SOTU stated that we had collapsed to “among the worst” in economic growth We came out of WWII with the only industrial base still standing, and soon fell to the bottom with FDR’s taxes!

                    Official business cycle dates.

                    http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

                    JFK describes the massive FAILURE of postwar economy.

                    http://bit.ly/1c9HQB3

                    Who do we believe, you or voice and words of John Kennedy?

                    PS The Interstate Highway System was launched in 1956 — followed immediately by the worst of five postwar recessions — check the proof and get back to us.

              3. Europe is in deep financial doo doo, and still digging. There is no evidence in history to suggest that a government is less corrupt or less vicious than a corporation. Rather the contrary.

                1. C. S. P. Schofield|10.25.14 @ 3:34PM|#

                  There is no evidence in history to suggest that a government is less corrupt or less vicious than a corporation.

                  I doubt it but regardless, at least we can vote the corrupt politicians out of office. Government is accountable for its actions. We need to make sure corporations are too.

                  1. I doubt it but regardless, at least we can vote the corrupt politicians out of office. Government is accountable for its actions. We need to make sure corporations are too.

                    Haha, false. Corrupt politicians can sometimes be voted out, if 50% +1 do so. But (except in very limited circumstances) any individual can “hold a corporation accountable” by not doing business with them. I don’t need 50% of the voters to agree with me in order to hold a corporation accountable, so my system is better that yours.

                  2. Corporations ARE accountable; to their stockholders, to their customers,and to the Law. And somehow, whenever I see or hear of an example supposedly of a corporation NOT being held accountable, some government screwup seems to be at the back of it.

                    The Love Canal mess being an excellent example.

                  3. Government is accountable for its actions.

                    *Laughs uncontrollably*

                    This person HAS to be a parody.

                    We need to make sure corporations are too.

                    They are every time they earn or lose profit. A market is the most democratic thing in existence in the sense that people vote for products/services with their wallets. That is, private consumers use THEIR OWN MONEY to reward success and punish failure by purchasing things they like and not purchasing things they do not like.

                    1. Rev-Match|10.25.14 @ 6:32PM|#

                      *Laughs uncontrollably*

                      keep laughing

                      FTA:

                      “Facebook, like Google, represents a new kind of business entity whose power is simultaneously ubiquitous, hidden, and unaccountable.” What Facebook does is engineering, not science, and our online actions are the product being engineered. While we call Facebook’s employees “data scientists,” they don’t have the strict adherence to ethics, rigor, and reproducibility that we associate with science…
                      Facebook’s power could even extend to a form of digital gerrymandering. Last election, Facebook drove more people out to vote, partly by telling them which of their friends had already voted earlier in the day. (A study in Nature found the effort drove about 60,000 more voters to the polls.) What if Facebook were to use that knowledge during the next election, and selectively give such feedback to users who matched the company’s political ideals? It’s within their technological power to do so, and within their legal power too, given today’s lack of oversight. Only the company’s self-restraint stops it from going further.

                2. But, but…the Khmer Rouge !!!

              4. “And unchecked capitalism is what led to National Socialism.”

                So how long until you run out of cue cards? There’s no way you’ve memorized this many dumb liberal slogans. Or do you just grab them out of a hat?

              5. Actually there was this thing called the Treaty of Versailles that was largely what created the environment for national socialism. That, and a population largely willing to embrace a state that claimed it would take care of them and remove the ‘evil’ elements from society.

              6. And unchecked capitalism is what led to National Socialism.

                IOW

                “”Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste-heap of Europe, for what they were: money Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews ? Anti-Semitism is really a hatred of capitalism.”

                Right Ulrike?

              7. And unchecked capitalism is what led to National Socialism.

                No. The unjust (because Germany did not start the war) treatment of Germany by the allies following WWI drove it into the hands of national socialism.

                1. “The … treatment of Germany by the allies following WWI drove it into the hands of national socialism.”

                  Truer words were never spoken, er, typed.

                  “(because Germany did not start the war)”

                  Ummmmm….. what?

                2. “The … treatment of Germany by the allies following WWI drove it into the hands of national socialism.”

                  Truer words were never spoken, er, typed.

                  “(because Germany did not start the war)”

                  Ummmmm….. what?

              8. “And unchecked capitalism is what led to National Socialism.”

                /drops cigarette from lips.

                My the ignorance.

          3. Yeah, I like this one.

            Can I keep him? Can I? Can I?

            I’ll change his troll box an’ feed him an’ take him for Internet walks and everything!

            I’ll poke holes in the top of his box so he doesn’t die like the last one.

            1. But Tony is still alive!

              I think our trolls don’t really need oxygen. Or food. They sustain themselves entirely upon the grief they inflict upon our brains.

          4. If were to actually you read the Nazi Party platform rather than call people fascists without actually knowing what the word means, you’d find they’d be more supportive of your policy prescriptions than Playa’s. For example, their 1920s platform states:

            -We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
            -We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
            -We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the
            owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
            -We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.
            -It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued
            within the framework of the community and for the general good.

            Of course realizing that you have no idea what fascism means would require self-awareness that a person who Godwins right off the bat would lack.

            1. a person who Godwins right off the bat

              Blaaarrrrggghhh. . . !

          5. blind|10.25.14 @ 2:24PM|#
            “No, I think I will stay here and continue to speak out against income inequality.”

            Yes, and when you donate all your income to others, why, we’ll grant you your deserved rep as an ignoramus.

          6. Not too long ago, in the 1930s, they had a whole country that shared your beliefs.

            This does not even deserve a response, but I want to give you some helpful insight. What I am about to say is not likely something you have heard from Rachel Maddow or her kid-sister, Chris Hayes: The crutch of Libertarian ideology is that of voluntarism and that the initiation of force is immoral. On the other hand, fascism, socialism, and communism require the initiation of force.

            1. The crutch of Libertarian ideology is …

              The best lines are often succinct like that!

              1. Would have been better if he would have used the word foundation or cornerstone or something like that. But it’s very clear what he meant.

                Progtards are always grasping for straws, like seizing on a technical play of words or something such as that when they have nothing else. And you don’t have anything else, do you? I think that question has already been answered for us.

                1. Actually, the word he wanted was “crux” but I didn’t want to dilute my compliment!

      3. You must subscribe to the Clinton’s “arithmetic”… Your math is off by about 6 billion dollars.
        $7.25/hr*40*52*2*1,085,000=$32.7B

        1. JasonPen|10.25.14 @ 3:04PM|#

          You must subscribe to the Clinton’s “arithmetic”… Your math is off by about 6 billion dollars.
          $7.25/hr*40*52*2*1,085,000=$32.7B

          The 2 after 52 does not belong. The original $7.25 does not figure in to the doubling.

      4. Whadya know? Hillary leads into her thrashing of business with a ringing endorsement of raising the minimum wage.

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..nomics.php

        I’m sure right after this video was over she said something about the germans bombing Pearl Harbor, but no one stopped her because she was on a roll.

        1. Pope Jimbo|10.25.14 @ 3:37PM|#

          Whadya know? Hillary leads into her thrashing of business with a ringing endorsement of raising the minimum wage.

          Of course. These two issue are interrelated. From the article in my @ 1:55 PM post:

          These pennies add up considerably on $26.7 billion in earnings. If the $26.7 billion Wall Streeters pulled in on bonuses in 2013 had gone to minimum wage workers instead, our GDP would have grown by about $32.3 billion, over triple the $10.4 billion boost expected from the Wall Street bonuses.

          Triple the growth!

          1. Triple the growth!

            blind, scroll back and see how wacky that is. I walk you through starting your own business, step by step and the role of… capital! You lose. Simple math.

            1. 1+1= Socialism

              2+2= Communism

              3+3= The use of force to coerce people into giving you their money in the name of the greater good

              4+4= Profit!

      5. Your handle…..accurate.

      6. What’s the difference between “ripple effect,” that you apparently think works, and “trickle down,” that Ms. Clinton (and maybe you) think doesn’t work? Money earned and spent by some gets earned and re-spent by others. Also, without a source for the $1.21 and 39 cent figures, they are merely an assertion.

          1. blind has been flimm-flammed again!

            According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of taxpayers received 71 percent of all capital gains in 2012,

            Ummm, the Tax Policy Center deals with reported capital gains.

            82% af all capital gains are earned by the middle class, on employee pension funds alone … never reported because middle-class gains are 100% tax exempt. So when your puppetmasters piss and moan about Warren Buffett paying “only ” 15% on capital gains … the middle class pays 0% on 4x as many dollars. And this is how your “sources” make a fool out of you over and over and over again.

            The largest classes of middle-class loopholes are pension funds, inheritance, residential home sales.

            This is from my website archive — all from original sources, not some partisan think tank.

            Tax loopholes targeted at the middle class (listed below) total one trillion dollars per year. That’s 1/3 of all personal income, 1300% greater than so-called Corporate Welfare, and 200% greater than corporate profits. Middle-class loopholes are greater than all reported personal income above $90,000 per year.

            Copyright 2005 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved and defended

            http://libertyissues.com/loophole.htm

            If you can take a break from sucking Bill Gates’ teat, I’ll show you how the 1% subsidizes 40% of the entire core middle class share of taxes! (lol) ($40k-99k)

    4. The only moral way to make money is to get into government office and steal it from the tax payers at the point of a gun. Making money by providing people with products and services that they want is totally sinful.

      /progderp

  12. Weird. I have a job and from that job I earn a wage; who am I working for?

    1. The collective and your political masters.

    2. You’re missing the point. Your employer didn’t create that job. Government did. Government gave the corporation or business the proper rules, regulations and incentives, and then and only then did your employer create your job. Without government directing the economy, you wouldn’t have a job. And your job would pay better if the evil rich people who employ you didn’t siphon off all those immoral profits. If they weren’t stealing all those immoral profits from your labor, they’d pay you what you deserve. That’s why the government needs to raise the minimum wage and tax away all those immoral profits. Tearing down the rich lifts the poor!

      1. The roads. You forgot to mention the roads.

      2. Tearing down the rich lifts the poor!

        Which poor? The public sector “workers”?

      3. If there is some kind of thought process behind the “businesses don’t create jobs” mentality, this is it. Only through the benevolent and expert hand of government is it possible for jobs to exist. They view business as a tool, like a hammer. (or sickle)

      4. How an you keep that up, sarc? My brain is trying to squirm out of my ear and run for safety just reading that garbage.

        1. Know your enemy.

  13. Just so we’re clear, and let me be clear, centralized government spending is not trickle down.

    1. Nobody ever said it has anything to do with spending, centralized or otherwise. “Trickle-down” refers (falsely) to “tax cuts for the rich” which never happened.

      Reagan’s were across the board. 85% of GW Bush’s went to taxpayers UNDER $250,000, who paid only 45% of the personal income tax. Wealth redistribution, GOP style.

      And WE allow the bullshit to continue.

      1. You do understand that was sarcasm, don’t you? “Trickle Down” supposedly doesn’t work because it gives money to the “rich” few. But concentrating spending in the hands of an already rich government is different, because, um–hey, look over there!

        1. You do understand that was sarcasm, don’t you?

          You got me! I had indeed read your mind.

          But concentrating spending in the hands of an already rich government is different, because, um–hey, look over there!

          (smile) Nobody says that, SO you are MASTER OF sarcasm!!

          1. But I want to be MASTER OF SARCASM!

            We should write a law making everybody or nobody the MASTER OF SARCASM! That way, we’ll all be equal!

            1. You just want to avoid a title bout with NotAnotherSkippy.

              1. I’ll get that championship belt, damn it!

                ONE DAY!

                1. Will you settle for a belt of scotch?

                  1. . . . . . . . . . .

                    Yes.

                    1. Sorry, Rooskie, I should have offered vodka. Tomorrow.

    2. Reagan increased spending. That in itself does not equate to an increase in government bureaucracy.

      The libertarian meme on Reagan being another statist is a little exaggerated. Like it or not, a Reagan style Republican is about the best you are going to get for the libertarian agenda.

      What would government spending have looked like without the Cold War in the ’80’s?

      1. Wow you’re stupid. His point was that the left denigrates letting business keep more of it’s money as “trickle-down” while lauding the idea that funneling money through government will cause it to, well, TRICKLE-DOWN to the deserving poor and make them richer.

        1. I wasn’t 100% sure whether Hihn was bashing trickle down economics somewhat or praising them, to be honest. At the same time, I didn’t misunderstand the point at government spending at all. I’ll just ignore the insult.

          While wealth redistribution and the Keynesian concept of government stimulus is moronic, your description of it is just wrong. The left believes in wealth redistribution. It’s not ‘trickle down.’ They are horribly misguided worldwide on how wealth is created and such, but they specifically don’t consider it ‘trickle down.’ In their minds the goal is simply perceived inequality.

          Summary: tricle down does not = redistribution. Which is one of the points I was getting at with Hihns post which I found a bit ambiguous. I could not tell his exact intention with it. His latest post makes his point more clear to me.

          1. Summary: tricle down does not = redistribution. Which is one of the points I was getting at with Hihns post which I found a bit ambiguous. I could not tell his exact intention with it. His latest post makes his point more clear to me.

            We do have several overlapping issues here.

      2. Reagan increased spending.

        The Libertarian Tribe (not you) ignores the Grace Commission and New Federalism .. and younger ones never heard about them..

        Like it or not, a Reagan style Republican is about the best you are going to get for the libertarian agenda.

        Umm, Reagan was our first libertarian President (if we cut through the bullshit) Along with Goldwater, Buckley, Kemp, Friedman and others.

        (See the Grace Commission, New Federalism, his and Goldwater’s AGGRESSIVE defense of gays in the 70s They BOTH battled the extreme social conservatives — compared with faux libertarians, father and son, who suck up to them)

        Also the Reagan Democrats, mostly in the Rust belt, so bipartisan. An industrial policy! (Today’s GOP and libertarian tribe have nothing)

        What we SHOULD be doing is restoring the Reagan Coalition, but folks like Gillespie keep insulting the very folks we NEED.

        What would government spending have looked like without the Cold War in the ’80’s?

        It ended too late, and the GOP Congress kept fucking Reagan over. The end of the Cold War was intended to provide a “peace dividend” to then pay down the debt … precisely as we did after WWII.

        1. I tend to agree with this and it was my point. Reagan (whether we call him libertarian or not – I wouldn’t go that far) was in many respects closer to the platform a libertarian would want.

          In the recent atmosphere of massive government spending, I think it’s been easier for libertarians to go back and criticize Reagan for it partially to sound even handed and partially for a lack of nuance. It is, in my view, straight up revisionist history and a product of ideological puritanism among some libertarians.

          1. My perspective is very different (and rare) amongst libertarians. I’ve been elected in two different states, won a local tax revolt and ran a state party focused on WINNABLE local races. We don’t have near enough electoral-minded libertarians.

            I call Reagan a libertarian — partly to distinguish from the EXTREME social conservatism of Ron and Rand Paul (extreme socons). Plus too many (not you) keep pissing and moaning about what’s not libertarian enough .. which even Ayn Rand thought was wacky.

            Goldwater was wise enough to see the “Moral Majority” as a severe threat to his party. For us, the threat comes from the Purists, who are actually cultists,

            Somehow, we’re gonna achieve and manage a free society, without electing anyone! In many arenas, including this page, any attempt to define an electable policy creates a cacophony of screeching about “compromising with statism.”

            Somehow, we need to separate the political movement from the cult.

        2. I loved his libertarian slogan, “Just say no!” No unintended consequences there, nossir!

        3. OMG, drug warrior tough on crime Reagan was so not a libertarian.

  14. Why is the media continuing to foist this woman off on the American public? She is just a power hungry, selfish ego hungry for the spotlight. She has nothing to recommend her for public office. And by the way, where did all the money go that was raised for the poor souls in Haiti? The media never asks.

    Just curious as to what her accomplishments are. Because I can’t think of a single one.

    She’s the Kim Kardashian of American politics, like, yes, she’s nice, but what does she do?

    Also – The last thing this country needs is another Democrat in the White House.

    Obama has crippled the US economy. Everybody I know is either out of work or under-employed. I haven’t had a raise in years despite all my expenses increasing from year to year. My health insurance is now up to $400/month. Before the government touched it, it was $250/month! My auto insurance, which the government has yet to ruin, is thankfully only $25/month (from Insurance Panda). Please, Obama! Don’t try to socialize auto insurance!

    With everything Obama touched in shambles, Barry needs a new hobby? and the United States needs a non-Democrat in office!

    1. I haven’t had a raise in years despite all my expenses increasing from year to year. My health insurance is now up to $400/month.

      /sarc off

      I know what you mean. I haven’t seen a raise in four years, and my health insurance just went from $350/mo to $500/mo. It’s ridiculous. My biweekly paycheck is down close to two hundred dollars from what it was four years ago.

      /sarc on

      But those corporations are hoarding cash! They’re making record profits! It’s their fault you haven’t gotten a raise! They’re greedy! They need to pay their fair share! Once they’re poor then we will know that they have paid their fair share! Sure, you won’t have a job, but there will be more equality!

      1. Do not bother to engage this spam poster. It’s just a plug for auto insurance. Similar posts are all over internet comment boards, framed as “Things suck because of Obama/Obamacare/whatever, but I got this great deal on car insurance.”

        1. It doesn’t look like a lizard.

        2. OK, so it’s spam. But it’s probably the truth!

    2. wobykyxyco|10.25.14 @ 1:45PM|#

      “Why is the media continuing to foist this woman off on the American public? She is just a power hungry, selfish ego hungry for the spotlight.”

      Why, I believe you’ve answered your own question! And the media will get further access to her besides.
      Once licking Obo’s shoes becomes irrelevant, they’ll need new shoes to lick and she sure has a pair!

      1. See my comment above.

    3. She is just a power hungry, selfish ego hungry cunt

      FTFY

    4. “like, yes, she’s nice, but what does she do?”

      Apparently she’s a real bitch behind the scenes.

  15. No surprise. When even many libertarians share her delusions of trickle-down and the Reagan Presidency, we’ll keep hearing that forever.

    Across-the-board tax cuts are hardly trickle-down or supply-side, and what was called trickle-down was a repeat of the successful Kennedy tax cuts, both of which led to the ONLY postwar booms.

    According to REAL math, Clinton took office in the 22nd month of a recovery, that he got from “trickle-down” (Reagan)

    1. You missed the memo on the terrible growth of inequality that occurred, though.

      I’m tired of revisionist history pushed by the left where suddenly the 1980’s economic environment was terrible and caused all the ills that we are currently experiencing.

      The ‘trickle-down’ concept can’t even be mentioned today in any form (even if only loosely related to what Reagan argued) itself can’t even be used today without most young people thinking you’re delusional because this is the narrative the media has been pushing for the last decade and a half or so.

      Reagan has been posthumously turned into the devil. I know the left-wing hated him in his own day, but they didn’t have the level of support in doing it that they now enjoy.

      1. You missed the memo on the terrible growth of inequality that occurred, though.

        Yeah, when the poverty rate collapsed, especially for blacks, THAT is when we needed an armed revolution.

        I’m tired of revisionist history pushed by the left where suddenly the 1980’s economic environment was terrible and caused all the ills that we are currently experiencing.

        It’s not just the left. How many on the right have swallowed the bullshit that income tax revenues skyrocketed after the Reagan tax cuts?

        The ‘trickle-down’ concept can’t even be mentioned today in any form (even if only loosely related to what Reagan argued) itself can’t even be used today without most young people thinking you’re delusional because this is the narrative the media has been pushing for the last decade and a half or so.

        We can’t blame the “mainstream media.” I blame the total failure to counter ANY of that by the Wall Street Journal, CATO, National Review and the rest … all fixated on their navels.

        No offense, but do YOU know the Medicare Trust Fund is now subsidized by 24% of every penny paid in personal income taxes … roughly a quarter-trillion this years, with a formula GUARANTEED to take a higher percentage every year … thanks to Dubya and the GOP?

        It’s like Obamacare, which passed by default. Even now, we cannot fight a something with a nothing.

        1. We can’t fight something with a nothing, so we should…what? Telling people to let the market handle things is a tough selling point that libertarians articulate poorly.

          There is libertarian alternative to Obamacare, really, because the solution is to deregulate and let the supply grow (along with allowing innovation and experimentation to occur).

          This should be articulated as the alternative, but even if it were – it wouldn’t sell in the media. Most people want the government to do something. As as libertarian, I do not. I want the government doing far, far less. I don’t want top men telling us how to live period.

          1. We can’t fight something with a nothing, so we should…what?

            Step-by-step solutions, not anti-gummint slogans.

            Telling people to let the market handle things is a tough selling point that libertarians articulate poorly.

            So do you. Here at least.

            There is libertarian alternative to Obamacare, really, because the solution is to deregulate and let the supply grow (along with allowing innovation and experimentation to occur).

            That’s NOT a solution. HOW?

            1) HOW do we deal with Medicare stealing a quarter-trillion in INCOME taxes every year?

            2) HOW did we provide medical care to everyone, by whom, and a what cost?

            We already did it. HOW?

            This should be articulated as the alternative, but even if it were – it wouldn’t sell in the media.

            You haven’t said anything.

            Most people want the government to do something. As as libertarian, I do not.

            Nobody gives a flying fuck what we want. Why should THEY want it?

            Our eternal conflict. Pro-liberty vs anti-gummint. Sell the sizzle not the steak. The first hour of elementary Sales Training.

            We talk ONLY to libertarians Preach to the choir. More like a cult than a plan for GOVERNING.

            Everything we say assumes a free society requires everyone be libertarian … or just have faith that a handful of us can run it all. FAIL.

            (Sorry so blunt. Space is limited!)

  16. Typical Hillary. She’s copying someone else (Warren), and doing a piss poor job of it.

    1. When your primary accomplishment is having sex with Bill Clinton, it’s not like you’re getting by on talent, looks, or brains.

      1. Having sex with Bill Clinton? Who – Hillary? Well once maybe.

        1. Yeah, one could say that horse left the barn a long time ago.

          1. That adequately describes both her looks and the size of her gaping vagina.

            Well done.

            1. Why the long face?

  17. I find it amazing that she managed to squeeze a reference to Bill in there. She has to remind people of why anyone knows who she is – she latched onto a man who became famous and powerful.

    Is it ironic that the first female president has basically achieved nothing on her own merits, but is only popular because she was the first lady?

    1. Correction – the most likely candidate to be the first female president.

      1. It’s a foregone conclusion around here (SF Bay Area). They are going to be bitterly disappointed if it doesn’t happen.

        1. She has way too many skeletons in her closet.

          Her husband raped a women (rape rape), and she dragged the victim through the mud. How are the feminists going to spin that? They can’t.

          1. Uh, they won’t have too, because the media won’t even bring it up. Isn’t it nice having a media that does its job? Well, does its job for one TEAM, of course.

          2. Why not?
            Do you naively believe that feminists give a crap about teh women?

            If Allred’s free grope defense of Billy Boy didn’t disprove that then their mindless misogynist attacks on Sarah Palin and her daughters should have.

          3. All the media has to do is make the Republican appear more anti-women. Remember Romney’s war on women in 2012?

            I don’t know if Hillary will become president, but I do think there is a chance it will happen. On the other hand, while the media will try to prop her up, there is also a chance that enough of the country is sick of her. Could go either way at this point.

      2. And if she does become the first woman President she will be AT LEAST as big an embarassment to women as Obama should be to blacks.

  18. my co-worker’s aunt makes $62 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired from work for 6 months but last month her check was $18355 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check this link right here now…

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

    1. Tell it to Shrillery, pal.

    2. Fucking government jobs!

  19. What does create jobs, then? Or will she try to figure that out after getting elected?

    1. The next time she does an interview or a town hall meeting, that should be the very first question.

      “So Hillary, you’ve stated that businesses don’t create jobs. Could you explain to all of us how jobs are created?”

      1. “It takes a village!” (And someone with an iron fist to rule the village.)

      2. Hillary: My husband created 40 million jobs as president and I will too!

    2. She’ll say “education.”

  20. So should I not hire then?

    I would hate to make her wrong.

  21. I could swear that I just signed a bunch of payroll checks for people that work jobs created by our business.

    I guess I must have been hallucinating.

    1. All of those taxes I withheld from employees too.

      I guess I didnt need to do that.

      1. No no no no no no nonononono, we need that money for more jobs!

        /Hill-dawg

  22. You’ve heard of “Job Fairs”, right? They’re called Job Fairs, because that’s where the Job Fairies show up.

    1. Job fairs are the only fair way to fairly portion out jobs!

      It’s only fair that a fair number of people fairly receive their jobs at the jobs fair!

      I’m fairly certain that a fair number of people will be fairly allocated a fair number of jobs at the job fair!

      It’s only fair, right?

  23. Hillary 2016 because what difference, at this point, does it make!

  24. Having sEx with Bill Clinton does not qualify one for the presidency

    Heck my legs are smoking. I could probably have sex with Bill Clinton. you don’t want me as Pres.

    1. Heck my legs are smoking

      Thank GOD, somebody finally lit you on fire.

      1. LMAO.

        You gents here sure play hardball!

  25. Alt Text: “Woman who never created a job in her life gives advise on how to create jobs”

    1. She put plenty of terrorist to work in Libya.

  26. And who can argue with math?

    Common Core curriculum creators?

  27. A firm punch to the ovary should fix this. “Bad, Hillary, bad!”

    1. Careful not to set off the snuke.

  28. This makes sense in the mind of a progressive, because “people” create jobs, and people are NOT corporations. Or, they may reason that Americans who buy products create jobs.

    It’s predictable way in which they misrepresent the market or the economy in a way that one group OWES or is solely dependent on the another. So they’ll say businesses that outsource jobs or merge with foreign companies are “unpatriotic” since they reaped the benefits of their infrastructure, education, etc, even though they pay taxes and create jobs that surely support them.

    If you listened to amnesty advocates, some industry will just completely collapse if immigrants don’t take those jobs.

  29. I don’t think Homeland security would tolerate the snuke snizz hazards of a Hillary presidency. You can’t allow that kind of access to sensitive areas and information given the toxic instrument of doom she possesses

    1. Don’t you have some perps to shoot?

  30. More in “that makes sense”-news

    Bill De Blasio Dines At The Meatball Shop To Calm Ebola Fears

    Failed to see how eating meatballs is a sign that our city is being well-managed? well that’s your problem.

    “In addition to his meal at The Meatball Shop, de Blasio went out of his way to take the subway on Friday, as did New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who last week announced the transit system would be subject to random Ebola drills.”

    I presume these drills do not involve leaving the city.

    1. They dont involve rational thought or common sense, either. Never seems to stop them.

      1. What i love is the “he went out of his way to take the subway

        Nevermind the millions of people *that have no choice every day*

        Its like, “The Emperor! He eats! He walks! He deigns to pretend to be mortal!”

        We’re supposed to take this as signs that “everything is being managed PERFECTLY”

        Nevermind the fact that Ebola-boy was riding the L train while infected

        Because that is a Good Idea

        1. How does Bill de Blasio normally travel?
          I’m assuming a motorcade with police escort.

  31. At this point I’m starting to believe that Hillary Clinton is exactly the president that America deserves.

  32. Why is the unemployment rate even a thing? Why doesn’t the government just give everyone a job?

    1. Would you like an example of government corruption and waste? An actual good first hand example?

      My father in law is a retired member of the DCMA, a government agency that oversees defense contracts. He has personally saved the government more than 1.4 billion dollars every year since he began working for them, as well as the lives of many people who would otherwise have been killed by faulty equipment (facts which are documented and provable, BTW)

      He is the proud owner of a Snoopy Award, which is an award given by a team of astronauts when a person personally saves their lives in a heroic fashion. This man actually stopped a shuttle launch because he found a fault in a fuel line that would have blown up the shuttle and killed everybody on or near the launch platform.

      He retired about a year ago. The very first thing that the government did upon his retirement was explain that over the course of his entire career with them, they had overpayed him about $14,000 , and would not pay him his retirement benefits or pension until he payed them back that money.

      Took him and his wife about eight months before they finally got their first pension check.

      I am not a fan of the FedGov, but there are some people in the government that do incredible things, in incredible ways, and really and truly strive to make the world a better place. And these are the people the government tries to fuck over when they retire.

      What the fuck, government? What the fuck?

      1. I have a friend who recently retired from the US Forest Service after many years. The people who are supposed to be handling her pension fucked up her paperwork and treated her like shit when she tried to sort it out. I thought I had heard it all but I was still shocked.

        1. Man, these are some stories (RPM and DPR). Thanks for sharing.

      2. You work for the government…hell, you are Prime Minister, and you have to ask that question??

        Yes, there are a few good people in government, but the vast majority are people who would never be able to keep a job in the private sector because of extreme laziness and breathtaking incompetence.

        1. And those people seem to get away with practically anything. Fuck the productive and streamline the fuckups.

          Government, ladies and gentlemen.

          1. The saying for that, commonly used by state employees here, is ‘fuck up, move up’.

      3. That is pretty awful. At least in a private company he’d get a plaque or a watch or something, which still beats “we overpaid”.

      4. *The very first thing that the government did upon his retirement was explain that over the course of his entire career with them, they had overpayed him about $14,000*

        So you’re father saved the government a ton of money, so that entitles him to more wages than he should have been paid.

        In other words, some wasteful spending is okay.

        Got it.

    2. Because austerity!

      Also Kochtopus conspiracy

  33. I have an ambition deficit. IT isn’t fair that people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born with so much ambition. It is only fair that I be compensated for my lack of ambition and spending what meager earning I do make on World of Tanks camo patterns. Also, it isn’t fair that I grew to only 5′ 7″ . Everyone taller than me should have their femurs surgically reduced to my height.

  34. Sarcasmic is wrong

    Capitalism does not mean the rich get richer and the poor get poorer capitalism means the rich get richer and the poor get richer

    1. That’s. . .You. . .But. . .I. . .

      Who the hell ARE you? Dunphy isn’t like this!

    2. Is that sarcasm?

      1. Nope, it is a sub-par attempt to sockpuppet dunphy. Just ignore it.

        1. I dunno man, it very well could be Dunphy, there are marked similarities.

          However, sarc never made that statement as a fact, he was making an assessment about how people view politics through emotion over reason and that’s why socialism can seem more attractive to a lot of people when they don’t really think about it, but only emote.

        2. I have been getting this bullshit from my very first post. no way I actually could be a cop or a B a libertarian or I can’t be the real Dunphy or et cetera et cetera it’s nice to see that the ignorati still cannot deal with the actual concepts but instead just wanks ineffectively on meta
          I’ve pummelled Epi, Sarc (still butthurt over his legit DUI conviction), Sloopy ( never heard of exigency thus cops can’t force entry to residence w/o PC but actually only need RS or CCS reasons, etc)

          At least ‘hmmm’ has faded away

  35. So thirteen years after the spectacular failure of the Soviet Union, right in the middle of the spectacular failure of Venezuela and with the EU continually circling the drain its popular to spout Marxist/Communist tripe in public. We have gotten to the point of electing an empty suit to the presidency who continually vomits commie platitudes, electing numerous congresspersons and senators who are openly socialist. Now the Hildebeast looks dead into the camera and proclaims….something…..I can’t make sense of it, and it is clear that she doesn’t understand either.

    We even have empty headed trolls who come here and garble garble incoherent defenses of her.

    This will not end well.

    1. Dread Pirate Roberts|10.25.14 @ 4:39PM|#

      At this point I’m starting to believe that Hillary Clinton is exactly the president that America deserves.

      OK…fuck me. Maybe you are right.

    2. Europe will be right of the USA before you know it. And I expect South America close to follow. Within one election cycle I am guessing. I just hope that communism finally gets it’s eternal rest in the graveyard of history that it deserves this time around.

    3. So thirteen years after the spectacular failure of the Soviet Union

      There was an obstructionist teabagger who caused that. They were doing great up until that. They were up to one refrigerator per city block and the lines for toilet paper were only 10 kilometers long. If not for the radical teabaggers, they would have had one black and white teevee per city soon!

    4. Nope.

      It won’t.

      1. Here’s the funny thing. The media and Democrats have convinced the majority of Americans that Republicans have gone full-on extremist because the Tea Party wants to cut taxes…

        Meanwhile, Hillary says shit like this, and it won’t even be a blip on the radar of the likes of the NYT.

        1. Here’s the funny thing. The media and Democrats have convinced the majority of Americans that Republicans have gone full-on extremist because the Tea Party wants to cut taxes…

          It’s more than that. They have no idea how to do it, let alone how to sell it. Even Ayn Rand said that was wacky. What does it say if you’re too extreme for Ayn Rand??!!

          Recall, these are the dumbfucks who threatened to shut down the government, to repeal Obamacare …. with no alternative.

          Plus the even bigger dumbfucks who snarl, “We don’t need no steenking alternative, just git gummint out.”

          “But don’t touch my Medicare.” (lol)

          That’s not a media joke. It happens.

  36. Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs

    Really? So she’s going full on leftist? What a dumb fucking cunt.

  37. Do you guys hear that? It sounds like a tired, old, marxist hag’s Presidential aspirations being flushed down a toilet. I believe I will have a few beers to celebrate.

    1. I went and told my wife “Hey, Hillary just shot herself on live television.”

      She said she didn’t believe me. I showed her the video.

      “Holy shit. You are right. She did.” Was her comment.

      It couldn’t have happened to a nicer cunt. This makes me smile.

      1. a nicer cunt

        Nice controversial band name.

      2. Considering what Obama has gotten away with, she’s right to think that she can say anything, no matter how dumb and still get elected. But, she’s still a dumb cunt.

        1. Obama got away with ‘he didn’t built that.’ Most voters will never seen this clip. Most that do already hated Hillary.

  38. Is this stupid troll night or something?

  39. I tried to tell everyone she was always a liberal at heart. I thought so in the 2008 primary. I thought that Obama’s above-it-all shtick was naive, and I was right, and he took an unbelievably long time shedding that nonsense. Nothing would be sweeter than Hillary Clinton herself finally ushering in the post-Reaganomics era. You guys may not know this about me, but I like you idiots more than I like Naderites.

    1. If you mean that ‘liberal at heart’ entails her work as a lawyer by lying and prosecuting a rape victim, then yeah, she’s liberal.

      Evil that is.

      1. She’s cozy with the elite, no doubt about it (though I don’t believe in faulting lawyers for doing their job). Can’t get elected to major office in this country without elite money. Or free speech as you guys refer to it.

    2. There is nothing liberal about what she said. It is standard progressive pablum.

  40. “Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.

    What a disingenuous bitch. She believes very STRONGLY in trickle down economics… What the FUCK theory does she think endless Stimulus is based on?

    1. Stimulus isn’t trickle down.

      Trickle down is when you let businesses and corporations keep their own money, and then they have the opportunity to expand and create jobs.

      Stimulus is when the government takes money away from people who may have used it to expand and create jobs, and then gives it to the politically connected.

      One creates wealth; the other destroys it.

      The argument against trickle down is that an opportunity isn’t a mandate, which means that not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity. Thus some mandate needs to be put in place that takes away those profits that may be misused, and then puts them in the hands of Top. Men. who will use the money correctly.

      That’s how government creates jobs, not businesses and corporations.

      1. You’re talking about how stimulus actually works, vs how it’s sold.

        The THEORY behind stimulus is that if you enable the largest financial firms and lending institutions, that money will become looser, and thus stimulate the economy by the effects of that policy trickling down to Mom & Pop.

        No, it doesn’t work for obvious reasons, because it’s trickle-down-economics as guided by benevolent politicians and creepy fed actors.

        Real trickle down economics is thousands and millions of wealthier individual actors, pursuing their own self interest and risking their own capital that trickles down to the rest of the population as jobs and opportunity.

        the reason she doesn’t like t/d economics in the REAL sense is precisely because it isn’t guided by her politically connected actors which, in turn put her in power.

        She’s a disingenuous cunt.

        1. Bzzzt WRONG!

          The THEORY behind stimulus is that if you enable the largest financial firms and lending institutions, that money will become looser, and thus stimulate the economy by the effects of that policy trickling down to Mom & Pop

          Not even close. The THEORY is that more workers will be hired or recalled if consumers are buying more stuff. It’s also called demand-side economics. Increase demand for goods, and more workers will be needed to meet that demand. So use government spending to put more dollars in the hands of consumers. And we can do that “for free” (in effect) by creating temporary jobs with public works projects. Just like wartime spending during WWII “primed the pump” for the massive postwar boom.

          What’s your counter-argument?

          Real trickle down economics is thousands and millions of wealthier individual actors, pursuing their own self interest and risking their own capital that trickles down to the rest of the population as jobs and opportunity.

          Every bit as crazy as the demand-siders!
          And there has NEVER been a trickle-down tax policy. You’re just repeating the lie preached by Paul Krugman and the zany left about Reaganomics. Never happened.

          But even Nick Gillespie believes we had a postwar boom!!!

  41. That depends on what the meaning of “jobs” is. If a job is defined by the good you do for society, then yes. Corporations and businesses create those. If a job is defined as watching internet porn for 40 hours a week and getting a paycheck… even government can create that.

  42. What I don’t understand is how Democrafts/liberals constantly attack the trickle down theory, yet constantly push their own version of it.

    Only instead of the the trickle down happening because people (and corporations) kept their own money and spend it (or put in a bank), it’s because the government hands it out to people (and corporations) and spend it.

    It’s basically the same thing, except you have the government taking the money first and redistributing it. Usually from the middle class to the poor and rich, screwing the middle class.

    1. What I don’t understand is how Democrafts/liberals constantly attack the trickle down theory, yet constantly push their own version of it.

      What is Seen and What is Not Seen

      http://bastiat.org/

      It is easy to see some government program creating jobs. What you can’t see are the jobs that may have been created had the money used to create those jobs been left in the hands of the people who earned it.

      1. I would add something to this – when the government takes money and redistributes it, it stunts the growth of the economy/pie as a whole.

        When people keep their money, they put it to use. That isn’t always to create jobs right away, but they do tend to invest that money and create wealth and opportunities.

        If we are going to keep using the redistributive model as a form of social trickle-down economics, I’d recommend calling it ‘trickle-up.’ They steal from the bottom, and at least nominally redistribute it to the poor.

        In reality, government revenue is cut up by cronies and interest groups before it’s ever redistributed. So, I guess I’m back to it being trickle down…only secret and corrupt.

    2. you have the government taking the money first and redistributing it. Usually from the middle class to the poor and rich, screwing the middle class.

      Liberals lie! Official IRS data:

      http: //tinyurl. com/3v53nhw

      Far right columns. Average tax rate by income level.

      Obama’s “$50,000 secretary” averages …. 8.0%
      Core middle class *$40,000-99,999) averages ……… 8.3%
      Millionaires and billionaires average …………………… 22%

      Obama says a $50,000 teacher pays a higher rate than millionaires and billionaires. WTF

      http://1.usa.gov/13imgV9

      Now the “fair share” of taxes, same core middle class, same table. $billion

      REPORTED INCOME = $8,263
      $40,000 to $49,999…..$497
      $50,000 to $74,999…..1,180
      $75,000 to $99,999…..1,014
      TOTAL………………2,671….32.3% of personal income)

      INCOME TAXES PAID $1,032
      $40,000 to $49,999….31 billion
      $50,000 to $74,999….93
      $75,000 to $99,999….92
      TOTAL…………….216….(20.9% of personal income taxes)

      Now divide, 20.9/32.3 = 64.7% The ENTIRE core middle class pays only 65% of their own share of taxes. Who subsidizes the other 35% of the ENTIRE middle-class share, Venezuelans?.

      Now divide the other way. 32.3/20.9 = 155% – 100% = 55%. What we see here is that the ENTIRE core middle class must pay an income tax increase of 55% …. JUST TO PAY ITS OWN WAY! (gasp)

      Simple math.

      Copyright 2005-2014 by Michael J Hihn. All Rights Reserved And Defended

  43. What about a FREE MARKET ECONOMY? No trickle down, no thief (taxes) of other’s peoples stuff. Let the market alone. Calling it trickle down seems to allow people to use it as some sort of catch phrase in their propaganda.

    1. You mean a trickle-down economy without politicians lying about how the concentrated wealth would trickle down. It is more honest, I’ll give it that.

      1. Wealth is not money, and money is not wealth.

  44. Another WTF moment in American history: Just when you think we’ve hit rock-bottom of human stupidity, some dipshidiot pulls out a shovel and starts digging. Today’s dipshidiot is none other than 2016 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton…..followed closely by anyone who actually buys into that line of thought. Realistically, what are corporations and businesses? Entities comprised of people collectively involved in some for-profit endeavor, i.e. for the profit for the business AND for the individuals comprising the force operating the business.

    I want to know 1) what idiot speechwriter wrote this stupidity and 2) why Hillary was stupid enough to approve it and then actually say it. Oh, wait: she’s a liberal democrat who’s banking on her constituency to be gullible enough to believe such nonsense.

    1. I really think this has everything to do with Elizabeth Warren being the progressive wet dream. A socialist female Democrat who claims to be part Native American? They’d run to the polls!

      Hillary is leaning to the left just like Rand Paul is trying to go mainstream on his foreign policy beliefs.

      There is an awkwardness in her speech there, I think. But the bottom line is she said it, it’s out there, and her followers are stupid enough to believe it. The sin has been committed and she sucked already before this.

    2. Entities comprised of people collectively involved in some for-profit endeavor, i.e. for the profit for the business AND for the individuals comprising the force operating the business.

      I find it difficult to get collectivists to understand that individualists do not oppose collective action, we only oppose it under threat of arrest.

      1. I’ve had some occasional success telling them “I have no objection to YOU coining a commune, and collectively buying and bargaining with people who wish to enter into a relationship with said commune voluntarily. What I won’t do is join you, and if you try to make me by force I will do my level best to stop you.”

        1. This has no value to collectivists, though. They don’t want any sense of individual responsibility.

          I had the pleasure of watching an old clip from Chris Hayes on the subject of why it doesn’t matter that wealthy liberals don’t voluntarily pay more taxes. Basically, there’s this social contract, and when we vote on something, we are writing it into the social contract. The individual has no responsibility as it falls onto the state to use its ‘coercive power’ (IE the barrel of a gun) to to enforce this ‘social contract.’ It was an eloquent line of bullshit. That sort of stuff I imagine they teach you at

          The concept of collective rights is an oxymoron. Alls it really means is you can justify taking anything away from the individual if enough people want it.

          You are wasting your breath, really. There is no concept of individual responsibility, individual rights, and there certainly isn’t coherent logic.

          Progressives/socialists are nothing more than greedy reactionaries.

  45. It really is simple arithmetic.

    G + MTD = J

    (Government plus mucho taxpayer dollars equals jobs)

    1. G+MTD=AEES

      Government plus mucho taxpayer dollars equals an enormous economic sinkhole

  46. They created her job, didn’t they?

  47. It’s a fine distinction – Government creates jobs, business creates work.

    1. It’s a fine distinction – Government creates jobs, business creates work.

      Totally backwards, as in “Government make-work jobs”

  48. Who can argue with math?

    Clearly, Government knows how to subtract.

  49. So is there a clip or article that tells us what Hillary thinks DOES create jobs? Has it been put to the test and been proven successful? I am amazed that no print or video item I have found about this story so far digs further to answer THOSE questions. Everybody seems to be milking the clip’s shock and outrage value for all it is worth.

  50. Customers create jobs. Businesses hire employees in order to meet (or in anticipation of) customer demand. When customers go away, so do the jobs. Any jobs created by businesses without customer demand are speculative and temporary.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.