Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Economic Policy Speech Was as Awful as Trump's

More taxes, more regulations, more subsidies, more giveaways...more EVERYTHING except economic growth.

|

Gage Skidmore / Flickr

As Veronique de Rugy noted earlier today, Hillary Clinton has given a speech in Michigan on economic policy, just like Donald Trump did on Monday.

If The Donald's speech was short on details and long on invective, Clinton's speech (transcript) was both long on invective and long on giveaways, handouts, employer mandates, and new public-spending projects. Sadly, neither candidate seems particularly interested in reducing governmental drag on the economy. Rather, each wants to build a semi-permeable membrane around America, one that will reduce imports but allow lots and lots of exports while also forcing companies to keep jobs in the United States. What are the odds of success for plans that simultaneously punish companies, force new mandates on them, and shovel tax breaks and handouts their way? If the past 15 or so years—rife with just these sorts of mixed, schizophrenic incentives—are any indcation, the answer is: less than zero.

Clinton's remarks were essentially cribbed from her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. The problem, she asserted, isn't that anything is wrong with America. No, America is already great, except that the "1 percent" is making too much money at the expense of everyone else. And China, too, is "gaming" the system of international trade by giving Americans cheap clothes, trinkets, and more. The answers, she says, are to beef up private-sector unions, force "sharing economy" companies such as Uber and Lyft to pay benefits like traditional employers, and to create "a more progressive, more patriotic tax code."

Given that the United States already has "the most progressive [tax system] in the developed world," it's not exactly clear where Clinton can take things. As it stands, the top 10 percent of income earners in America pull 34 percent of income and pay 45 percent of taxes. In terms of "patriotic taxes," Clinton has at various times said that companies that "ship jobs overseas" will be required to pay back tax incentives they've received in the past. Details are for the little people, of course, but wouldn't it simply be easier to cut the various tax incentives offered companies in the first place? Like Trump, Clinton has assailed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has been slagging NAFTA since the mid-2000s. She and Trump seem to share a vision of America as besieged by cheap imports and corporate overlords who readily move jobs overseas. Whatever else you can say about that vision, it's not shared by a majority of Americans, who correctly believe that free trade agreements "have been a good thing" for the country. According to Pew Research, 51 percent of us favor free trade. Among Democrats, the percentage is even higher, at 56 percent.

Although both Clinton and Trump have pledged to increase spending from already historically high levels, Clinton continues to add her slate of Christmas gifts. Before the DNC, Clinton's spending plan, as scored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), would increase spending from 22 percent of GDP to 22.7 percent over the coming decade. At the DNC and today in Detroit, Clinton added more new spending measures, such as guaranteeing free in-state college tuition to households making up to $125,000 (more than double the median household income), opening up Medicare to people at 55 years rather than 65, and forgiving student-loan debt. The exact costs of these new programs aren't clear yet, though CRFB says it will be generating estimates for them in the coming weeks.

Even before the new spending gets added up, CRFB wrote that "neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor businessman Donald Trump has put forward a plan to address the national debt" while noting that high levels of debt correlate sharply with reduced economic growth. In July, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its long-term budget outlook and concluded that under "real GDP would increase by 2.1 percent per year, on average, over the next 30 years, compared with 2.9 percent between 1966 and 2015." Economic growth is ultimately where increased living standards come from, so a slower rate of growth is no small matter.

Lord knows that Clinton and Trump are hardly the same when it comes to their rhetoric and their preferred targets of taxpayer-funded and tax-code-enabled largesse. But in the final analysis, each is incapable of suggesting how to goose the rate of growth. Instead, they inhabit a zero-sum world, where one side's gain—foreign countries such as China, say, or the top 1 percent—by definition comes at the expense of everyone else. "Too many of the gains have gone to the top 1 percent," said Clinton today. "China and other countries have gamed the system for too long."

Yet her response to all this is to propose making workers more expensive by saddling employers with a doubling of the minimum wage, forcing them to provide more child care and paid parental leaves, and laying new regulations on everything imaginable. It will take nothing short of a miracle for the economy to overcome such specifics, much less the the uncertainty of ever-increasing government spending which ultimately must be paid for. "'Stronger Together'" is not just a slogan for our campaign, averred Clinton in Michigan today.

It's a guiding principle for the future we're going to build. And it's the choice we've got to make this November — whether our country will work for everyone, or just for those at the top.

Whether it'll be a "stronger together" economy where we all rise together, or an "us versus them" economy where we all fight over a shrinking pie.

It's nice to hear Clinton fret over a "shrinking pie." It would be better still if her plans didn't lead precisely to such an outcome.

Advertisement

NEXT: NYPD Civil Forfeiture Leaves Bronx Family Facing Eviction

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. Funny how they always invoke the “US is the only developed country” blah blah blah, but somehow ignore our higest tax system or corp tax rates.

    And “Patriotic” to pay taxes more, jesus fucking christ. and don’t ever get them to define what a “fair share” is.

    34% of income and 45% of all taxes isn’t a fair share?

    1. They will just keep moving the goalpost until it’s indistinguishable from communist revolution. Oh but they’re totally “liberals” who believe in market forces and freedom.

      If a poor person pays 8 cents he buys a cup of coffee and it “hurts” him more than some millionaire asshole paying millions in taxes and still living like a king, then to the left, that poor guy paid more in the only sense that matters. Emotions and feelings is all that counts to them.

      1. Who was it that said “The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide?as, I think, he will.” ?? Somebody educated where?

        1. Our very own Francisco said that. Rand plagiarized him.

    2. A Laffer curve minimax share is 4%-5% of GNP as measured by President Calvin Coolidge. Indeed, Gross National Product as an expression was coined by Clark Warburton, economist retained by the American Association Against the Prohibition Amendment and 1932 author of “The Economic Results of Prohibition.” Prohibitionism and looter parasitism have common genetic, economic and ideological roots. The trick is to keep them secret.

      1. FFS, get some help.

    3. “and don’t ever get them to define what a “fair share” is.”

      There’s a question that’s really fun to ask “progressives”, and it is, “what’s the ideal number, and how did you arrive at that number?” Try it sometime. They never have an answer for this.

      It works whether were talking about a proposed minimum wage; about the “correct” amount of minorities or women in certain industries; about corporate tax rates… Anything at all.

      When they’re thinking about numerical boundaries on issues like these, they just make up a number that feels right to them, or sometimes parrot a number that they heard a politician throw out. There’s never any calculation that goes into it.

      1. Agree. According to IRS data, the bottom 48% pay 0 federal income tax (which is not the same as a payroll tax), yet they have access to the same public services as everyone else. When you ask one of those little leftists how 0 can be considered a fair share, they usually give their (normally) confused look.

    4. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for 25470 dollar this 7-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least 97 dollar per hour. I work through this website. Go here… http://bit.do/OpL0a

  2. “What are the odds of success for plans that simultaneously punish companies, force new mandates on them, and shovel tax breaks and handouts their way?”

    Can tax breaks be shoveled at someone?

    1. Isn’t there a word for this kind of economic policy? Like an F word?

        1. Ok, two F words.

        2. Boom! Winner!

      1. Fourth Reich?

    2. First, you need to define what you mean by “success”.

      1. I break it into its roots for the appropriate meaning in this case.

        Suck and Cess

  3. Yew were expecting Milton Friedman? Patrick Henry?

    1. Robespierre

      1. Can’t wait for the Thermidorean Reaction. Uh oh, was that a true threat? Better call my lawyer.

  4. “as Awful as Trump’s”

    Whipping out the harshest term of abuse available, I see…

  5. Holy crap, but does that woman ever give me the creeps when she smiles.

    Even when its not that gape-mouthed thing she does to mimic extreme happiness.

    She really gives the impression of someone who doesn’t know how to do facial expressions, and is trying to mimic them. Kind of a live-action uncanny valley thing.

    1. She’s mechanical. It’s all an effort for her. I imagine that’s because her natural personality leaves something to be desired.

        1. INTJs are usually smart though

        2. So, I just took a quick test, and it says I’m ISTP. I read the description, and I don’t think it a perfect fit. Close, but key things are wrong.
          Trying to classify all people into one of 16 personality types seems… unrealistic.

          1. Social “science”:

            It’s a spectrum, lol.

          2. Trying to classify all people into one of 16 personality types seems… unrealistic.

            My last job the dumb ass director had a consultant come in and do the test. After doing a bit of research I found the test basically BS. I decided to do a little experiment and just checked the first answer for every question. When the results came back the test was unable to put me in one of the 16 boxes. The interesting part was the people I considered intelligent were put in the worker bee category while the dumb ass director and her minions were told they were the creative class.

    2. Spot on. It always looks like she spent hours practicing in a mirror and still doesn’t manage to quite look human.

      1. Sugar Free’s spot on about Lee Gene’s being spot on!

        1. Don’t make me give Steve Smith your address.

    3. Please don’t use the term ‘gape’ in ANY context when discussing Haillary Clinton. It has the potential to conjure up images that…….that……please just don’t.

      1. Pic of Hillary gaping:

        http://endingthefed.com/hole-i…..itter.html

        Bonus before and after shots of her tongue. Its clear something was removed from it.

        Paging Dr. Groovus. First time I had seen a before picture of some kind of . . . growth on her tongue.

        1. Looks like photo shop to me.

        2. They had to surgically remove Huma’s clit. Hillary is smiling because it was worth it.

          1. Ouch. That had to hurt.

        3. I think it’s a cough drop.

        4. Oh god, why did I click that!?

          1. Seriously, you should have put a NSFW warning on that link.

      2. It’s nice to hear Clinton fret over a “shrinking pie.”

        See, no gaping to worry about.

    4. Gordon Brown had a similar thing going on. Hillary is way creepier, though.

    5. I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday. It’s very…off-putting.

      If I had to describe it, I’d call it the “rich, crazy grandma” look: all plastic smiles, all the time, and only her close family knows about her bi-polar diagnosis, the on again/off again med-go-round, and the suicide attempts.

      I just can’t help but think she’s going to end up harming herself one day.

      1. As a comparison: Angela Merkel actually looks like a serious person. At least she doesn’t go around grinning like a psychopath all the time.

      2. We couldn’t be that lucky, could we?

    6. Reptoid, clearly. She still hasn’t figured out how to move around in her skin suit.

    7. Also, she has a hole in her tongue.

    8. Holy crap, but does that woman ever give me the creeps when she smiles.

      I can’t quite tell whether she is suffering from a stroke or has something very big shoved up her ass, but there is clearly something wrong with her.

    9. The faux smile doesn’t creep me out as that donkey bray that she calls laughter.

  6. Looks like our only hope to survive as a semi-free country is to have House and Senate in the hands of the party that doesn’t have the Executive Office, but control is not high enough to push through veto-proof legislation.

    1. Re-elect Gridlock 2016

      1. Google Gridlock 2016 bumper sticker:

        http://www.zazzle.com/im_ready…..4176574710

        Not bad.

        1. Google giant meteor bumper

      2. If you want to congratulate your Congress-critter for doing a good job of fomenting gridlock, or you just want to encourage him, send him one of these.

      3. Saw a good bumper sticker yesterday. It was similar in design to the Hillary for Prison 2016, but it said Giant Meteor 2016. Seems appropriate.

    2. Unfortunately Paul Ryan has made it pretty clear that he’s in a different party in name only. He’s more than happy to fund Obamacare and whatever nonsense Hillary comes up with between (or during) seizures.

    1. Don’t make me root for Gawker

    2. Gawker’s going out in a blaze of petulant whining.

      1. they had an article recently titled ‘how to tell if you’re dating a Fox news spy.” I didn’t read it of course but I have to assume Gawker decided to play a big joke on all of us and have a bunch of paranoid schizophrenics write their articles for the last few weeks.

  7. More taxes, more regulations, more subsidies, more giveaways…more EVERYTHING except economic growth

    As we say in the carpentry biz – “I’ve cut this board three times and it still ain’t long enough.”

    1. You didn’t cut the fair share part.

      1. And I bet you’ve sent a new laborer to find the board stretcher to fix it, yes?

        1. That was for Jerry. Mobile Reason is awful.

          1. Yeah. I wish the apps had commenting functionality.

        2. One of my favorites. It’s also fun to send them looking for a 6/8’s inch wrench.

          1. They really should put “0.75” on the wrench for these kids who need a calculator.

          2. Is this a send the FNG out for chemlight batteries or keys to the drop zone, thing?

            1. Yeah, in the Navy we used to send the noobs out for some relative bearing grease and 20′ of chow line.

              Gawd please please stop using that pic of Hillary! Can’t we just look at her backside?

              1. Heh and sound-powered phone batteries, classified steam, and prop wash.

  8. I’m still outraged that Nick denounced me as one of his personal commenters.

    1. What? When was this?

  9. Ilya Somin writes:

    “Enforcement of the original meaning [of the US Constitution] certainly would not give us a completely libertarian polity. But it would still impose tighter limits on federal power and stronger protection for a variety of individual rights ? including property rights and economic liberties ? than is likely under the realistically feasible alternatives, such as “living constitutionalism” or wide-ranging judicial deference to the political process.”

  10. Modern civilizations corrode the fuck out of modest harmonious tomorrows. Torment quests wind as broken steps around the apex of human delusions. Brazen chains rattle against the dreams of the dead while seekers of reigning positions clutch the pearls of dragons mounted high above the earthen facades.

  11. Hillary’s “we’ll tax our way into utopia!” commercial is on every goddamn commercial break during the Olympics. Makes one unhappy.

    1. Ha! Like anyone’s watching the Olympics.

      1. No shit! Why, when bronco’s preseason is on?

    2. When I think it, all I can think is? Hillary wants to build a wall, too!

      1. Yeah, but we don’t get Mexico to pay for it under her plan. Point to Trump.

  12. Clinton tries to undermine central premise of Trump’s campaign ? that he would help struggling Americans – Washington Post

    Trump bashes foreign trade as the locus of the ills of the middle class, Clinton bashes Rich People as the locus of the ills.

    WHO WILL WIN IN THIS BATTLE OF WITS??

    1. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure the middle class will lose either way.

      1. I’m pretty sure the middle class will lose either way.

        Its like one is saying, “I WILL THROTTLE THE ECONOMY INTO A STANDSTILL THROUGH POINTLESS PROTECTIONISM”

        and the other is saying, “I WILL DRAIN YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE INCOME INTO AN EVER EXPANDING GOVT BEHEMOTH”

        and the voters are like “I JUST CANT DECIDE!! THEY PRESENT SUCH DIFFERENT VISIONS”

        and Reason is like, “SHUT UP YOU TRUMPTARDS”

      2. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure the middle class will lose either way.

        The American middle class (i.e., those making around the median income) are the most pampered, wealthy, and subsidized group of people on the planet. They pay very low taxes and receive massive government handouts.

        Both Hillary and Trump are falling all over themselves to promise more handouts to the American middle class, because that’s the way you get elected in the US.

  13. Do the proles not understand everything they promise has to come from the Congress?

    1. Not only that, but if they did understand they would demand a strong executive who could “get things done” without Congress. These are people who think gridlock is bad.

  14. Hillary is awful BUT TRUMP

    1. the shillaries were in indignation overdrive attempting to split their rhetorical hairs on the difference between blowing a purely educational dog whistle that a historical assassination could happen again vs a chuckled call for a future assassination. dots can only be connected in one direction.
      I’m pretty sure my kool-aid tastes better than theirs

  15. so Hillary is not on board with Obama’s economic work? Seriously, you can’t talk about improving the economy without the implied “improvement is needed” and, with that, a shot at the current office-holder.

    1. A more obvious question (to me at least): if America is already great, why does it need reform at all?

      If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    2. BOOSH
      KOCH
      OBSTRUCTIONISM

      I’m sure one of those excuses still makes sense.

  16. Sure sounds to me like Hillary’s policies are worse. At least Trump talks about tax cuts and reducing regulation.

    1. Careful. Noticing things like that will get you labeled a yokeltarian or a Trumpkin.

      1. Note, Derpetologist, that PapyaSF specifically wrote At least Trump talks about… and did not write that he, PapyaSF, believed what was said by the individual under discussion.

        1. I’m sure he noticed that very intentional phrasing.

      2. I am a Trumpeltarian, it’s more fun to say

          1. Progressoyolkeltrumpatarian, Orthodox.

            1. Also, you’ll always be Gilmore to me.

            2. You’re missing a ‘d’ after one of your ‘r’s’.

        1. Trumpelstiltskin

  17. I recall Churchill saying something along the lines of a nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like trying to fly by standing in a bucket and pulling up on the handle.

    But of course, he was an awful, racist, imperialist warmonger who clearly had nothing important to say. That is why it is now illegal to quote him in the UK.

    1. It bears repeating: England is done.

      1. They have not yet begun to….[redacted for violation of ‘fairness’ policy]

    2. “Suspicion of religious or racial harassment.” I know it’s not very libertarian of me to say, but I kinda feel like anyone who notes that such a thing actually exists in a country and says, ‘ya know, we should be more like them’ should be summarily tied to a raft and pushed off into the ocean in the general direction of that country.

      1. So why don’t you round up all the libertarians and send them off in a raft to Somalia???

        /sarc

    3. In many of these “free speech rankings” that we see, it seems like European countries are always ranked ahead of the US. I know the US is far from perfect when it comes to free speech. But most of these other countries have laws explicitly prohibiting Holocaust denial/revisionism or anything deemed to be “hateful” or “extremist” speech.

      1. In many of these “free speech rankings” that we see, it seems like European countries are always ranked ahead of the US.

        These “free speech rankings” are usually based on self-assessments of journalists and academics in the respective countries. It’s a pretty good bet that journalists in East Germany would have rated free speech rights there very highly…

  18. “neither candidate seems particularly interested in reducing governmental drag on the economy.”

    WTF! Trump proposed reducing corporate taxes from 35% to 15%. That’s a fantastic move in the right direction. It will bring hundreds of billions home, as well as millions of jobs. There is no comparison!

    Nick and others are (maybe unintentionally) shilling for Hilary by ignoring the few nuggets in Trump’s word salads.

    Reason, bah!

    1. WTF! Trump proposed reducing corporate taxes from 35% to 15%. That’s a fantastic move in the right direction.

      Of course he can’t deliver on that since Congress won’t go along.

      But then, that’s probably Trump’s biggest attraction: he won’t be able to get anything done.

      Hillary’s biggest problem is not that her ideas are bad (that’s true for most presidential candidates), but that she actually has the political power to push her bad ideas through Congress.

  19. According to Pew Research, 51 percent of us favor free trade. Among Democrats, the percentage is even higher, at 56 percent.

    Stated preferences aren’t always revealed preferences. And saying you favor free trade while voting for Clinton is the opposite of those two preferences matching.

    1. Are they talking about actual free trade or “free trade agreements”. You see around here lately the two terms are interchangeable.

  20. I think the one thing I actually agree with Hillary Clinton on is the idea of introducing new tax brackets for the highest earners. In 2016, $400k just doesn’t match up to the salary of CEOs and hedge fund managers. If the idea is to be fair, someone making $50m should be paying more.

    I would personally offset the new brackets by reducing taxes on people in the lower brackets for a net change of 0 to the revenue, which I know she isn’t gonna do.

    But there is at least sense in the logic if the whole point of a progressive system is people pay what they can afford. 39.6% of $400k is a whole lot more than 39.6% of $50m. The person making $50m doesn’t change their spending habits at all to account for it but the person making six figures does.

    1. How the hell is there sense in anyone being extorted for 39.6% of their income???? Reward gov’t failure with MOAR taxes?

      1. You missed the part where I said if I had it my way it’d lead to a net change of 0 in tax revenue? As in, not MOAR taxes. Just MOAR fair in a “fair” system.

        1. More progressive is more UNFAIR. If we are all equal in the law, should not our burdens be equal? Each dollar earned, whether by pauper or prince, should be taxed Equally.

    2. I don’t see why we still have tax brackets at all. We have computers these days. Let’ just make it a logarithmic function or a linear function that turns horizontal at some point. The idea that I could have a higher post-tax income by working less so I earn $249,999 instead of 250,000 is sufficient proof of the dumbness of fixed tax brackets.

      1. Unless I’m really missing something, you can’t have that. The 250,000th dollar is taxed at a higher rate, but not the whole sum.

      2. “The idea that I could have a higher post-tax income by working less so I earn $249,999 instead of 250,000 is sufficient proof of the dumbness of fixed tax brackets.”

        That’s not how tax brackets work. The higher rate applies only to income above the bracket threshold, not your entire income. If you made $250,002, the higher rate only applies to the extra $2. That’s not true, though, of low-income people facing benefit cut-offs for making too much money. In those cases, people actually can come out behind by earning more.

        1. Oh. I guess one doesn’t need to know these things when one never leaves one’s tax bracket. Well I still want a continuous logarithmic equation for taxes just for the greater mathematical elegance..

    3. Don’t forget state and local income taxes. In California, add another 13%. In New York and New Jersey, it’s about 9%.

    4. I would personally offset the new brackets by reducing taxes on people in the lower brackets for a net change of 0 to the revenue, which I know she isn’t gonna do.

      Taxing high earners simply doesn’t work. There isn’t enough money there to pay for all the programs the middle class wants, and high earners have ways of avoiding taxes, including simply leaving the country. In addition, many people who make high incomes do so only for a few years, and the more progressive you make the tax system, the more you discourage risk taking and entrepreneurship.

      A European-style welfare state, which is what Clinton is effectively advocating, requires European-style taxation, which means high taxes on the middle class. In Germany, the 42% tax bracket (state+federal) starts at around $57000 per year. Germany’s tax code is actually better for rich people (lower top marginal income taxes, very low property taxes) than for the middle class (much higher taxes on median incomes, much higher consumption taxes).

      The other reason Europeans get away with all that “free stuff” is that those programs have much smaller budgets. If we cut US health care and education expenditures to European levels of spending, we already could provide them free out of existing budgets and lower taxes.

  21. BTW don’t count on the Grand Coward Party top stand up to any of it. They will cave cave cave as not to be the bad guys in the media. Welcome to Europe lite folks.

  22. “a more progressive, more patriotic tax code.”

    Go fuck yourself. Many folks are paying half of their income in extortion (taxes) after the fed & state are through with them. Hell, I’ve seen folks who purchased their car in one state while living there, only to move to another state and get taxed again on a car they already paid tax on. Property taxes are another scam.

    What business get rewarded for continual failure (talking about ones not showered with subsidies and benefit from regulations written in their favor), mismanagement, misalocation or resources, and remains in business? If they can’t get it right with all of this debt, and monetary inflation, it’s time free individuals and private production take over.

    1. Ya know. I have paid taxes on the sugar, paid taxes on the yeast, paid taxes on the water, and paid taxes on the metal I used to make my still. Yet when I combine all of these materials together some how the product I have produced is magically “un-taxed”.
      Taxation is Magic !!!!! =D

    2. “Go fuck yourself. Many folks are paying half of their income in extortion (taxes) after the fed & state are through with them.”

      Not to mention the myriad of ways that various consumer products are made more expensive by special little taxes that few people take into consideration.

    3. What business get rewarded for continual failure (talking about ones not showered with subsidies and benefit from regulations written in their favor), mismanagement, misalocation or resources, and remains in business?

      Defense contractors, banks, media, investment banks–anybody with good political connections to Washington, in particular, to the Clintons. Not only do they get subsidies and favorable regulations, they also get bailouts and stimulus programs.

  23. Alternative headline for this article:

    Hillary Clinton’s Economic Policy Speech Was Awful.

  24. Can I just say, I love Hillary. The woman can do no wrong in my eyes.

  25. Lots of people oppose TPP because they support free trade.

    Of course, I wouldn’t put it past politicians to oppose TPP because they think it means free trade.

    1. Didn’t Clinton negotiate TPP?

      1. If she did, it was only so she could have something else to oppose come election time.

      2. WDATPDIM?

        Hillary now will do “the right thing”! Really, just vote for her! You can trust her!

  26. I know one thing… Its going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

  27. Well whoever wins, vandelay industries is done for

  28. “Together” is code for Government

    “Stronger Together” = Stronger Government

  29. Why aren’t Tony and AmSoc here to straighten us out on how wonderful Hillary and her “taxes are too damn low” plan are? Perhaps incapacitated by the rapturous orgasms they’re having?

  30. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Reportmax90.com

  31. Anna . I agree that James `s storry is really great… last thursday I got a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo after bringing in $4828 this last 5 weeks and just over ten grand last-munth . no-doubt about it, this really is the best work I’ve ever had . I began this four months/ago and straight away started to bring in at least $87, per-hour
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  32. Rather, each wants to build a semi-permeable membrane around America

    They’re saying that America should fuck other countries with a leaky condom? Unfortunately, experience shows, that we get stuck with massive child support payments when we do that.

  33. the leeches all see the hillary speech as a growth strategy.

    a growth in free stuff and increasing leech payments.

  34. Clinton’s plan is incremental communism

  35. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.