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? 

Comments

[John L.]

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.

[VG Zaytsev]

Corporation don't create jobs politicians do.

You didn't build dat, I did.

She's managed to out Obama Barack.

[Ayn Random Variation]

She's trying to outflank 2016 Dem nominee Lizzie Warren

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Bingo.

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

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

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.

[Troy muy grande boner]

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.

[Ted S.]

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[PapayaSF]

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.

[Scarecrow Repair]

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.

[John Titor]

*Cue millions of people supporting her for 'standing up to the little guy'.

[Bluwater]

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???

[PapayaSF]

Obviously it's not big enough.

[Hyperion]

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

[PM]

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...

[sarcasmic]

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.

[JEP]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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.

[Marianna]

Ayn Rand books? Lots of emoting there.

[Hyperion]

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.

[PapayaSF]

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.

[John Titor]

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.

[Erasmus vs. Luther]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

[Erasmus vs. Luther]

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.

[Robert]

What's wrong with tricking people to support libertarian thought?

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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!

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[John Titor]

'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.

[Suthenboy]

"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.

[Episiarch]

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.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

...and a lot of people fall within the "retarded" section of the bell curve.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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

[The Original Jason]

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

FTFY

[AlmightyJB]

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

[GILMORE]

"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.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[GILMORE]

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

[GILMORE]

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

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Gotcha. No prob.

[MJGreen]

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.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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?

[Paulpemb]

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."

[Voros McCracken]

I'm assuming a stork brings them, then?

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

A public sector union stork, yes.

[lap83]

"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

[Jerry on the sea]

"Look man, at least I balanced the budget."

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

+1 Withers

[AlmightyJB]

HA!

[Entropy Void]

WDATPDIM?

[juris imprudent]

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

[Res ipsa loquitur]

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.

[taylornrolyat]

"Businesses don't create jobs".... Not that we all didn't know this already but she's offically a bigger dumb ass than before.

[Libertarius]

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

[Acosmist]

Reading comprehension fail.

[BFawlty]

lol

[Sevo]

Free Shit Party!

[sasob]

Free Shit Party!

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Free Shit Party!

[Drave Robber]

Free Shit Party!

[DrAwkward]

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

[Freedom Frog]

Define most.

Then again I live in Brooklyn, so...

[DK]

So, arithmetic is now a euphemism?

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

It is when it disagrees with "feelings"

[Name Nomad]

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[Jerry on the sea]

OT: Kurdish militants killed three Turkish soldiers in Turkey's southeast on Saturday, the Turkish Armed Forces said.

[Stephdumas]

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".

[PapayaSF]

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?)

[juris imprudent]

It comes right after the "too much money spent on ads" exception, or is it before?

[Suthenboy]

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.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

But what do Millenials think?

[sarcasmic]

Good point. Someone should do a poll.

[VG Zaytsev]

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

[C. S. P. Schofield]

DO millennials think?

[Trials and Trippelations]

In the same way a school of fish does

[NotAnotherSkippy]

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

[blind]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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

[sarcasmic]

*sargasm = sarcasm + orgasm*

[blind]

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.

[GILMORE]

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.

[darius404]

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

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Taxes are a fancy word for "Protection Racket"

[blind]

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

[PapayaSF]

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.

[GILMORE]

"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.

[blind]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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.

[GILMORE]

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.

[See Double You]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

We'd be shouting "Victory!" so much we'd never get anything done.

[Procrastinatus]

"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.

[darius404]

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

[sarcasmic]

aye

[Pope Jimbo]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

I see ass-wiping in his immediate future.

[blind]

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.

[Episiarch]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

[PapayaSF]

e.e. cummings fan?

[juris imprudent]

This isn't someone who appreciates Capitalism.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

^^ Threadwinner!

[wadair]

Only an intellectually "blind" person could declare themselves free of prejudice.

[Robert]

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

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

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

[blind]

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.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

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

It's a real time saver.

[blind]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Put words in his mouth.

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

[blind]

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.

[fuck you Belinda Carlisle]

"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.

[blind]

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.

[fuck you Belinda Carlisle]

"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.

[fuck you Belinda Carlisle]

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

[blind]

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.

[fuck you Belinda Carlisle]

"You are the one who responded to my comment."

Yes, bo I am.

To tell you to go the fuck away.

Now go boy.

[fuck you Belinda Carlisle]

"My statement was hyberbole."

Sure liar.

[blind]

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.

[Calvin Coolidge]

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.

[blind]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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!

[The Hyperbole]

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

[blind]

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.

[Trials and Trippelations]

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?

[blind]

Trials and Trippelations|10.25.14 @ 3:51PM|#

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

Actually a video clearly demonstrates that it was actually President Roosevelt's progressive economic programs that he began in 1932 that did it. Those policies benefitted our country for the next 50 years. They not only got us out of the Great Depression, they helped us create the biggest and most vibrant middle class in history.

Here is the link to the video:

It is quite enlightening

[Trials and Trippelations]

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?

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

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

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[blind]

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.

[PapayaSF]

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.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[Rev-Match]

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.

[blind]

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.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

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

[lap83]

"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?

[John Titor]

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.

[VG Zaytsev]

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?

[Rev-Match]

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.

[Space Monkey!]

"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?

[Space Monkey!]

"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?

[Rufus J. Firefly]

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

/drops cigarette from lips.

My the ignorance.

[d3x / dt3]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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.

[John Titor]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

a person who Godwins right off the bat

Blaaarrrrggghhh. . . !

[Sevo]

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.

[Rev-Match]

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.

[JasonPen]

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

[blind]

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.

[Pope Jimbo]

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.

[blind]

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!

[Suthenboy]

Your handle.....accurate.

[Bob Straub]

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.

[blind]

Bob Straub|10.25.14 @ 7:09PM|#

Also, without a source for the $1.21 and 39 cent figures, they are merely an assertion.

FTA I linked to upthread:

Economic multipliers: Based on the macroeconomic multipliers calculated by Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi, which estimate the one-year dollar change in GDP for a given dollar reduction in federal tax revenue. For the low-wage worker multiplier, we followed a methodology developed by the Economic Policy Institute and averaged Zandi's stimulus multipliers for the Earned Income Tax Credit (within the parameters of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and Making Work Pay (ARRA's refundable tax credit for working individuals and families) for a multiplier of 1.21. For the high-income multiplier, we used Zandi's multiplier for dividend and capital gains tax cuts, for a multiplier of 0.39. Capital gains are heavily concentrated among very high-income individuals. According to the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of taxpayers received 71 percent of all capital gains in 2012.

There are links in the text on the webpage.

[Hyperion]

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

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

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

[VG Zaytsev]

The collective and your political masters.

[sarcasmic]

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!

[Homple]

The roads. You forgot to mention the roads.

[sasob]

Tearing down the rich lifts the poor!

Which poor? The public sector "workers"?

[lap83]

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)

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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.

[sarcasmic]

Know your enemy.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

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

[Brochettaward]

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?

[darius404]

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.

[Brochettaward]

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.

[wobykyxyco]

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!

[sarcasmic]

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!

[PapayaSF]

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."

[sarcasmic]

It doesn't look like a lizard.

[Robert]

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

[Sevo]

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!

[PapayaSF]

See my comment above.

[Sevo]

I see.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

She is just a power hungry, selfish ego hungry cunt

FTFY

[Rufus J. Firefly]

"like, yes, she's nice, but what does she do?"

Apparently she's a real bitch behind the scenes.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

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

[UCrawford]

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

[sasob]

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

[PapayaSF]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

Well done.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Why the long face?

[Brochettaward]

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?

[Brochettaward]

Correction - the most likely candidate to be the first female president.

[Len Bias]

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

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

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.

[Episiarch]

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.

[VG Zaytsev]

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.

[Len Bias]

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.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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.

[gabbygripagf]

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

[Sevo]

Tell it to Shrillery, pal.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Fucking government jobs!

[Len Bias]

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

[JEP]

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?"

[sasob]

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

[VG Zaytsev]

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

[PapayaSF]

She'll say "education."

[robc]

So should I not hire then?

I would hate to make her wrong.

[Nicholas Sarwark]

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.

[robc]

All of those taxes I withheld from employees too.

I guess I didnt need to do that.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

/Hill-dawg

[Anon E. Mouse]

You've heard of "Job Fairs", right? They're called Job Fairs, because that's where the Job Fairies show up.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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?

[VG Zaytsev]

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

[The artist known Dunphy]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Heck my legs are smoking

Thank GOD, somebody finally lit you on fire.

[Space Monkey!]

LMAO.

You gents here sure play hardball!

[Stickler Meeseeks]

Alt Text: "Woman who never created a job in her life gives advise on how to create jobs"

[VG Zaytsev]

She put plenty of terrorist to work in Libya.

[Trials and Trippelations]

And who can argue with math?

Common Core curriculum creators?

[DrVino]

@@

[kriskanya]

A firm punch to the ovary should fix this. "Bad, Hillary, bad!"

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Careful not to set off the snuke.

[XM]

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.

[The artist known Dunphy]

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

[Almanian!]

Don't you have some perps to shoot?

[GILMORE]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

[GILMORE]

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

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

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

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

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

[heartburn]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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?

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

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.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

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

[Suthenboy]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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

Government, ladies and gentlemen.

[Suthenboy]

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

[lap83]

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".

[jmomls]

*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.

[lap83]

Because austerity!

Also Kochtopus conspiracy

[Troy muy grande boner]

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.

[The artist known Dunphy]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

That's. . .You. . .But. . .I. . .

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

[sarcasmic]

Is that sarcasm?

[Episiarch]

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

[Hyperion]

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.

[The artist known Dunphy]

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

[Suthenboy]

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.

[Suthenboy]

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.

[Hyperion]

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.

[Hyperion]

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!

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Nope.

It won't.

[Brochettaward]

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.

[Hyperion]

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.

[Rev-Match]

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.

[Suthenboy]

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.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

a nicer cunt

Nice controversial band name.

[Hyperion]

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.

[Brochettaward]

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

[Hyperion]

Is this stupid troll night or something?

[Tony]

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.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[Suellington]

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

[Paul.]

"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?

[sarcasmic]

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.

[Paul.]

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.

[PeterElfvin]

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.

[JeremyR]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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.

[Brochettaward]

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.

[MarieK]

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.

[Tony]

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.

[sarcasmic]

Wealth is not money, and money is not wealth.

[ThrashMikki]

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.

[Brochettaward]

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.

[sarcasmic]

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.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

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."

[Brochettaward]

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.

[Suellington]

It really is simple arithmetic.

G + MTD = J

(Government plus mucho taxpayer dollars equals jobs)

[C. S. P. Schofield]

G+MTD=AEES

Government plus mucho taxpayer dollars equals an enormous economic sinkhole

[Mr Whipple]

They created her job, didn't they?

[Douglas Kubler]

It's a fine distinction - Government creates jobs, business creates work.

[Douglas Kubler]

Who can argue with math?

Clearly, Government knows how to subtract.

[James Anderson Merritt]

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.

[Mitchrodee]

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.

[Brochettaward]

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.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

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!

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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!

[blind]

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.

[Res ipsa loquitur]

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

[Unusual Dave]

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.

[GILMORE]

"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'?

[Rufus J. Firefly]

Who the fuck is this idiot, blind?

[Trials and Trippelations]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

I'll get that championship belt, damn it!

ONE DAY!

[Brochettaward]

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.

[Old Man With Candy]

I loved his libertarian slogan, "Just say no!" No unintended consequences there, nossir!

[Juice]

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

[RussianPrimeMinister]

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!

[RussianPrimeMinister]

. . . . . . . . . .

Yes.

[Hyperion]

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.

[Hyperion]

Who the fuck is this idiot, blind?

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

[Brochettaward]

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.