New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Republicans - Hillary did NOT kill herself

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-business-jobs_n_6046856.html

GOP strategists probably believe they’ve died and gone to heaven. Hillary is now on record with the most Marxist quote imaginable – “Don’t let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

In one surprising flash of ignorance Hillary managed to demolish the myth that she’s the “brighter” of the husband/wife time that occupied the white house in the 1990s.

How did Hillary come up with this “dictatorship of the masses” sound bite? She was trying to run to the LEFT of Elizabeth Warren, of course. This is why primaries are much more entertaining than the general election. The pandering that takes places is much more obvious and offensive.

Back to the GOP – you’re whistling past the graveyard if you think this will be any sort of impediment to Hillary running in 2016. Her gaffe may be proof of Karl Marx’s adage: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” But that doesn’t mean she will be deserted by masses of dropouts, illiterates, welfare recipients, students who never held a job, and government workers. (Even the UAW will probably be forced to support Hillary, as a condition of the government bailing out GM).

But Hillary’s once presumed lock on the “politics of gender identification” is now shattered. There are millions of entrepreneurial women who own restaurants, mall shops, service businesses, work as self employed accountants, are in private practice as doctors, dentists, veterinarians . . . they’ve all just been bitch slapped.

Republicans – nice that you got Hillary’s quote on tape. Don’t brush out and buy airtime to run it endlessly to support GOP senate and house candidates over the next 2 weeks, or it won’t be effective in 2016.

And don’t think you can cruise to the white house in 2016 without new leadership, and a real agenda. As distasteful as Hillary is, she still wins both a popularity and intelligence contest when matched up with McConnell or Boehner. Both these guys should stand down and allow the incoming house and senate GOP majorities to pick fresh faces; smarter people; younger people.

Hillary will be 70 on inauguration day, if elected. Time for the GOP to stop being the party of the old and feeble minded. Hillary has taken up that mantle for the democrats.
 

Arkady

President
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-business-jobs_n_6046856.html

GOP strategists probably believe they’ve died and gone to heaven. Hillary is now on record with the most Marxist quote imaginable – “Don’t let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

In one surprising flash of ignorance Hillary managed to demolish the myth that she’s the “brighter” of the husband/wife time that occupied the white house in the 1990s.

How did Hillary come up with this “dictatorship of the masses” sound bite? She was trying to run to the LEFT of Elizabeth Warren, of course. This is why primaries are much more entertaining than the general election. The pandering that takes places is much more obvious and offensive.

Back to the GOP – you’re whistling past the graveyard if you think this will be any sort of impediment to Hillary running in 2016. Her gaffe may be proof of Karl Marx’s adage: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” But that doesn’t mean she will be deserted by masses of dropouts, illiterates, welfare recipients, students who never held a job, and government workers. (Even the UAW will probably be forced to support Hillary, as a condition of the government bailing out GM).

But Hillary’s once presumed lock on the “politics of gender identification” is now shattered. There are millions of entrepreneurial women who own restaurants, mall shops, service businesses, work as self employed accountants, are in private practice as doctors, dentists, veterinarians . . . they’ve all just been bitch slapped.

Republicans – nice that you got Hillary’s quote on tape. Don’t brush out and buy airtime to run it endlessly to support GOP senate and house candidates over the next 2 weeks, or it won’t be effective in 2016.

And don’t think you can cruise to the white house in 2016 without new leadership, and a real agenda. As distasteful as Hillary is, she still wins both a popularity and intelligence contest when matched up with McConnell or Boehner. Both these guys should stand down and allow the incoming house and senate GOP majorities to pick fresh faces; smarter people; younger people.

Hillary will be 70 on inauguration day, if elected. Time for the GOP to stop being the party of the old and feeble minded. Hillary has taken up that mantle for the democrats.
Clinton's statement is accurate. That doesn't mean, however, that it's wise. It all comes down to whether the kind of person who is dumb enough to think that statement is substantively problematic is so dumb as to be lost to her, anyway. If someone imbecilic enough to perceive that quotation as Marxist was potentially in-play for Clinton, then it was an unwise statement. My guess, though, is that the kind of person who is so stupid or politically deluded as to think that statement was objectionable is the kind who was already too stupid or politically deluded ever to vote Democrat, anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think of the quotation.

If you see the quotation in context, it was clearly an attack on the failures of trickle-down economics. Corporations and businesses don't create jobs because they have extra money. If you try to spur the job market by cutting taxes on those monied interests, they'll just dividend it out or sit on piles of cash, unless they perceive unserved demand for their products. That's why top-down solutions have proven so ineffectual, again and again. If you want more jobs, a supply-side focus is entirely beside the point. The constraining feature on the job market is seldom an under-supply of capital. Rather, the constraining feature is generally insufficient aggregate demand. A bottom-up approach, which makes consumers better able to purchase end-products, spurs the demand that corporations and businesses need to see to hire people. That demand-side approach is what has been successful repeatedly. Clinton is entirely right to scoff at trickle-down economics. It's just that the way she phrased it allows disingenuous people to take one line out of context and to try to get the braindead to regard it as Marxism. It's merely a question, now, of whether those braindead folks were in play to begin with. I suspect not.
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
Those one liners taken out of context are about all the pubs have.. She was making the same point, Pres. Obama was making re the trickle down theory not working. Trying to make hay out of those one liners is the norm for them.
-----
Republicans made similar hay out of the president's "You didn't build that" comment in July 2012, eventually turning the line into a theme at the GOP's nominating convention.

Don’t Tell Anyone, but the Stimulus Worked

On the most basic level, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is responsible for saving and creating 2.5 million jobs. The majority of economists agree that it helped the economy grow by as much as 3.8 percent, and kept the unemployment rate from reaching 12 percent.
The stimulus is the reason, in fact, that most Americans are better off than they were four years ago, when the economy was in serious danger of shutting down.
But the stimulus did far more than stimulate: it protected the most vulnerable from the recession’s heavy winds. Of the act’s $840 billion final cost, $1.5 billion went to rent subsidies and emergency housing that kept 1.2 million people under roofs. (That’s why the recession didn’t produce rampant homelessness.) It increased spending on food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid, keeping at least seven million Americans from falling below the poverty line.
And as Mr. Grunwald shows, it made crucial investments in neglected economic sectors that are likely to pay off for decades. It jump-started the switch to electronic medical records, which will largely end the use of paper records by 2015. It poured more than $1 billion into comparative-effectiveness research on pharmaceuticals. It extended broadband Internet to thousands of rural communities. And it spent $90 billion on a huge variety of wind, solar and other clean energy projects that revived the industry. Republicans, of course, only want to talk about Solyndra, but most of the green investments have been quite successful, and renewable power output has doubled.
Americans don’t know most of this, and not just because Mitt Romney and his party denigrate the law as a boondoggle every five minutes. Democrats, so battered by the transformation of “stimulus” into a synonym for waste and fraud (of which there was little), have stopped using the word. Only four speakers at the Democratic convention even mentioned the recovery act, none using the word stimulus.

Mr. Obama himself didn’t bring it up at all. One of the biggest accomplishments of his first term — a clear illustration of the beneficial use of government power, in a law 50 percent larger (in constant dollars) than the original New Deal — and its author doesn’t even mention it in his most widely heard re-election speech. Such is the power of Republican misinformation, and Democratic timidity.

Mr. Grunwald argues that the recovery act was not timid, but the administration’s effort to sell it to the voters was muddled and ineffective. Not only did White House economists famously overestimate its impact on the jobless rate, handing Mr. Romney a favorite talking point, but the administration seemed to feel the benefits would simply be obvious. Mr. Obama, too cool to appear in an endless stream of photos with a shovel and hard hat, didn’t slap his name on public works projects in the self-promoting way of mayors and governors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dont-tell-anyone-but-the-stimulus-worked.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-business-jobs_n_6046856.html

GOP strategists probably believe they’ve died and gone to heaven. Hillary is now on record with the most Marxist quote imaginable – “Don’t let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

In one surprising flash of ignorance Hillary managed to demolish the myth that she’s the “brighter” of the husband/wife time that occupied the white house in the 1990s.

How did Hillary come up with this “dictatorship of the masses” sound bite? She was trying to run to the LEFT of Elizabeth Warren, of course. This is why primaries are much more entertaining than the general election. The pandering that takes places is much more obvious and offensive.

Back to the GOP – you’re whistling past the graveyard if you think this will be any sort of impediment to Hillary running in 2016. Her gaffe may be proof of Karl Marx’s adage: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” But that doesn’t mean she will be deserted by masses of dropouts, illiterates, welfare recipients, students who never held a job, and government workers. (Even the UAW will probably be forced to support Hillary, as a condition of the government bailing out GM).

But Hillary’s once presumed lock on the “politics of gender identification” is now shattered. There are millions of entrepreneurial women who own restaurants, mall shops, service businesses, work as self employed accountants, are in private practice as doctors, dentists, veterinarians . . . they’ve all just been bitch slapped.

Republicans – nice that you got Hillary’s quote on tape. Don’t brush out and buy airtime to run it endlessly to support GOP senate and house candidates over the next 2 weeks, or it won’t be effective in 2016.

And don’t think you can cruise to the white house in 2016 without new leadership, and a real agenda. As distasteful as Hillary is, she still wins both a popularity and intelligence contest when matched up with McConnell or Boehner. Both these guys should stand down and allow the incoming house and senate GOP majorities to pick fresh faces; smarter people; younger people.

Hillary will be 70 on inauguration day, if elected. Time for the GOP to stop being the party of the old and feeble minded. Hillary has taken up that mantle for the democrats.
I heard the quote. What I didn't hear is just who she thinks create jobs in this country if not corporations. Wadda dummy.
 

bdtex

Administrator
Staff member
But that doesn’t mean she will be deserted by masses of dropouts, illiterates, welfare recipients, students who never held a job, and government workers.
The 47%er bullshiite didn't work for Willard and it doesn't work for you either.
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/hillary-clinton-business-jobs_n_6046856.html

GOP strategists probably believe they’ve died and gone to heaven. Hillary is now on record with the most Marxist quote imaginable – “Don’t let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

In one surprising flash of ignorance Hillary managed to demolish the myth that she’s the “brighter” of the husband/wife time that occupied the white house in the 1990s.

How did Hillary come up with this “dictatorship of the masses” sound bite? She was trying to run to the LEFT of Elizabeth Warren, of course. This is why primaries are much more entertaining than the general election. The pandering that takes places is much more obvious and offensive.

Back to the GOP – you’re whistling past the graveyard if you think this will be any sort of impediment to Hillary running in 2016. Her gaffe may be proof of Karl Marx’s adage: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” But that doesn’t mean she will be deserted by masses of dropouts, illiterates, welfare recipients, students who never held a job, and government workers. (Even the UAW will probably be forced to support Hillary, as a condition of the government bailing out GM).

But Hillary’s once presumed lock on the “politics of gender identification” is now shattered. There are millions of entrepreneurial women who own restaurants, mall shops, service businesses, work as self employed accountants, are in private practice as doctors, dentists, veterinarians . . . they’ve all just been bitch slapped.

Republicans – nice that you got Hillary’s quote on tape. Don’t brush out and buy airtime to run it endlessly to support GOP senate and house candidates over the next 2 weeks, or it won’t be effective in 2016.

And don’t think you can cruise to the white house in 2016 without new leadership, and a real agenda. As distasteful as Hillary is, she still wins both a popularity and intelligence contest when matched up with McConnell or Boehner. Both these guys should stand down and allow the incoming house and senate GOP majorities to pick fresh faces; smarter people; younger people.

Hillary will be 70 on inauguration day, if elected. Time for the GOP to stop being the party of the old and feeble minded. Hillary has taken up that mantle for the democrats.

Hillary who?
 
Clinton's statement is accurate. That doesn't mean, however, that it's wise. It all comes down to whether the kind of person who is dumb enough to think that statement is substantively problematic is so dumb as to be lost to her, anyway. If someone imbecilic enough to perceive that quotation as Marxist was potentially in-play for Clinton, then it was an unwise statement. My guess, though, is that the kind of person who is so stupid or politically deluded as to think that statement was objectionable is the kind who was already too stupid or politically deluded ever to vote Democrat, anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think of the quotation.

If you see the quotation in context, it was clearly an attack on the failures of trickle-down economics. Corporations and businesses don't create jobs because they have extra money. If you try to spur the job market by cutting taxes on those monied interests, they'll just dividend it out or sit on piles of cash, unless they perceive unserved demand for their products. That's why top-down solutions have proven so ineffectual, again and again. If you want more jobs, a supply-side focus is entirely beside the point. The constraining feature on the job market is seldom an under-supply of capital. Rather, the constraining feature is generally insufficient aggregate demand. A bottom-up approach, which makes consumers better able to purchase end-products, spurs the demand that corporations and businesses need to see to hire people. That demand-side approach is what has been successful repeatedly. Clinton is entirely right to scoff at trickle-down economics. It's just that the way she phrased it allows disingenuous people to take one line out of context and to try to get the braindead to regard it as Marxism. It's merely a question, now, of whether those braindead folks were in play to begin with. I suspect not.
i'm puzzled here - can you help me out?

you believe clinton's statement (businesses don't create jobs) is accurate, but she should NOT tell the truth?

you espouse ascending to the white house through prevarication, then springing a left wing agenda on the public as a surprise?

that perfectly explains your undying support of obama, i guess.
 

Barbella

Senator
Clinton's statement is accurate. That doesn't mean, however, that it's wise. It all comes down to whether the kind of person who is dumb enough to think that statement is substantively problematic is so dumb as to be lost to her, anyway. If someone imbecilic enough to perceive that quotation as Marxist was potentially in-play for Clinton, then it was an unwise statement. My guess, though, is that the kind of person who is so stupid or politically deluded as to think that statement was objectionable is the kind who was already too stupid or politically deluded ever to vote Democrat, anyway, so it doesn't matter what they think of the quotation.

If you see the quotation in context, it was clearly an attack on the failures of trickle-down economics. Corporations and businesses don't create jobs because they have extra money. If you try to spur the job market by cutting taxes on those monied interests, they'll just dividend it out or sit on piles of cash, unless they perceive unserved demand for their products. That's why top-down solutions have proven so ineffectual, again and again. If you want more jobs, a supply-side focus is entirely beside the point. The constraining feature on the job market is seldom an under-supply of capital. Rather, the constraining feature is generally insufficient aggregate demand. A bottom-up approach, which makes consumers better able to purchase end-products, spurs the demand that corporations and businesses need to see to hire people. That demand-side approach is what has been successful repeatedly. Clinton is entirely right to scoff at trickle-down economics. It's just that the way she phrased it allows disingenuous people to take one line out of context and to try to get the braindead to regard it as Marxism. It's merely a question, now, of whether those braindead folks were in play to begin with. I suspect not.
So who was the Hillary who wrote, in her book "Hard Choices", "There were still too many barriers and restrictions, but American companies were slowly gaining access to Indian markets, creating jobs and opportunities for people in both countries." and

"We had worked with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to organize the trip because more trade between America and South Africa promised to create jobs and opportunities in both countries."

Different Hillary Clinton?
 
I heard the quote. What I didn't hear is just who she thinks create jobs in this country if not corporations. Wadda dummy.
i don't believe she's ever had a real job - she's been a student, or worked on the public payroll virtually her entire life.

she's a member of the "governing class", which has completely lost touch with the market based economy.
 

Arkady

President
you believe clinton's statement (businesses don't create jobs) is accurate, but she should NOT tell the truth?
No, that's not what I believe. Did that help you out?

you espouse ascending to the white house through prevarication, then springing a left wing agenda on the public as a surprise?
No and no.

that perfectly explains your undying support of obama, i guess.
My support for Obama is far from "undying." I support or oppose him on an issue-to-issue basis.
 

Arkady

President
So who was the Hillary who wrote, in her book "Hard Choices", "There were still too many barriers and restrictions, but American companies were slowly gaining access to Indian markets, creating jobs and opportunities for people in both countries." and

"We had worked with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to organize the trip because more trade between America and South Africa promised to create jobs and opportunities in both countries."

Different Hillary Clinton?
No. You just aren't following her argument, probably because you've relied on the right-wing media's out-of-context version of it.
 

Arkady

President
i don't believe she's ever had a real job - she's been a student, or worked on the public payroll virtually her entire life.

she's a member of the "governing class", which has completely lost touch with the market based economy.
She worked at a law firm for something like 15 years. Were you unaware of that?
 

connieb

Senator
i'm puzzled here - can you help me out?

you believe clinton's statement (businesses don't create jobs) is accurate, but she should NOT tell the truth?

you espouse ascending to the white house through prevarication, then springing a left wing agenda on the public as a surprise?

that perfectly explains your undying support of obama, i guess.

I think this time she is not going to catch business owners unaware. Last time, I had many clients all caught up in the Obama fever. Thought it was cool to elect the first black guy and all that jazz. Now, though they have seen that the economy for the small - to midsized non publically traded company well... sucks. And, Hillary is telling them - hey - it won't be any better under me.

These are people who are in business to line their own pockets. No doublt. But they provide jobs. They provide economic diversity and they are the backbone of our economy. And, Hillary is saying - yeah.. we ignored your concerns about the ACA. We ingored your concerns over what makes a full -time person'full time", we have ignored your please for tax relief and infact if you happened to have been successful and are taxed as a sub S we want a bigger chunck of that pie if we can get it you nasty 5%er.....

And, this time, they don't have the whole - oooh yeah we can assuage our white guilt by electing the black guy to fall back on. Hillary isn't going to dupe the same people who fell for Obama. after 6 years they know that this time around they will have to look out for their own pocketbook.

connie
 

GreenBean

Council Member
She worked at a law firm for something like 15 years. Were you unaware of that?
Worked ??!!! LMAO ... She may have been employed but there is a difference being being employed and "working" .

She worked for a scumbag named Web Hubbell [The probable father of Chelsea] . Hubbells son in law - Seth Ward - drafted the legislation creating ... Arkansas Development Finance Authority when Bill was governor .

"...millions of dollars of drug money was being laundered through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority and through Dan Lasater' brokerage company, and involved people close to Governor Bill Clinton. .... Federal Reserve reported that cash deposits in Arkansas Banks tripled while Clinton was Governor suggesting huge amounts of Drug Money being moved. "

America's Corrupt War on Drugs: and the People

The first five loans from the rkansas Development Finance Authority went to Clinton friends and associates ..." - It was controlled by none other than Webster Hubbell.Who received a 2.85 Million dollar loan that was NEVER repaid. So basically she conspired and successfully stole 2.85 Million from the people of Arkansas - Yes I guess you could say she "worked"
 

GreenBean

Council Member
Corporations and businesses don't create jobs because they have extra money.
In the real world - it's nothing for nothing . No they don't create jobs because they have extra money - they do Create Jobs because they have a need for the labor and talent . You don't hire a landscape if you live in a high rise, and you don't pay a tailor if you're a Nudist
 
She worked at a law firm for something like 15 years.
completely incorrect - see her wikipedia entry. she was a figurehead/partner at an arkansas law firm, while spending most of her time on various public sector committees, boards, and research groups. here are some excerpts -

From the East Coast to Arkansas
Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.] In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[36] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.
. . after failing the District of Columbia bar exam and passing the Arkansas exam, Rodham came to a key decision. As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head".She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington where career prospects were brighter. In August 1974, Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. She gave classes in criminal law, where she was considered a rigorous teacher and tough grader, and was the first director of the school's legal aid clinic.]

. . in February 1977, Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political influence.[71] She rarely performed litigation work in court.
Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977 and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979. The latter continued her argument that children's legal competence depended upon their age and other circumstances and that in serious medical rights cases, judicial intervention was sometimes warranted.An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."
In 1977, Rodham cofounded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.[34][79] Later that year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had been the 1976 campaign director of field operations in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation,[ and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981.] From mid-1978 to mid-1980, she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million;
Following her husband's November 1978 election as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year,[84] where she secured federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas's poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.[85]
In 1979, Rodham became the first woman to be made a full partner of Rose Law Firm. From 1978 until they entered the White House, she had a higher salary than that of her husband. During 1978 and 1979, while looking to supplement their income, Rodham made a spectacular profit from trading cattle futures contracts; an initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. The couple also began their ill-fated investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation real estate venture with Jim and Susan McDougal at this time.


Bill Clinton returned to the governor's office two years later by winning the election of 1982. During her husband's campaign, Rodham began to use the name Hillary Clinton, or sometimes "Mrs. Bill Clinton", to assuage the concerns of Arkansas voters; she also took a leave of absence from Rose Law to campaign for him full-time. As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton was named chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee in 1983, where she sought to reform the state's court-sanctioned public education system. In one of the Clinton governorship's most important initiatives, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association, to establish mandatory teacher testing and state standards for curriculum and classroom size. In 1985, she also introduced Arkansas's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.
Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas. She earned less than the other partners, as she billed fewer hours, but still made more than $200,000 in her final year there. She seldom did trial work,[but the firm considered her a "rainmaker" because she brought in clients, partly thanks to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections. She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges.
From 1982 to 1988, Clinton was on the board of directors, sometimes as chair, of the New World Foundation, which funded a variety of New Left interest groups From 1987 to 1991, she was the first chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, created to address gender bias in the legal profession and induce the association to adopt measures to combat it.

Clinton served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992) and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
 

Arkady

President
I think this time she is not going to catch business owners unaware. Last time, I had many clients all caught up in the Obama fever. Thought it was cool to elect the first black guy and all that jazz. Now, though they have seen that the economy for the small - to midsized non publically traded company well... sucks. And, Hillary is telling them - hey - it won't be any better under me.

These are people who are in business to line their own pockets. No doublt. But they provide jobs. They provide economic diversity and they are the backbone of our economy. And, Hillary is saying - yeah.. we ignored your concerns about the ACA. We ingored your concerns over what makes a full -time person'full time", we have ignored your please for tax relief and infact if you happened to have been successful and are taxed as a sub S we want a bigger chunck of that pie if we can get it you nasty 5%er.....

And, this time, they don't have the whole - oooh yeah we can assuage our white guilt by electing the black guy to fall back on. Hillary isn't going to dupe the same people who fell for Obama. after 6 years they know that this time around they will have to look out for their own pocketbook.

connie
Could their excitement about Obama have something to do with the fact that the prior regime had first presided over seven years of some of the most mediocre economic growth in American history, and then a single year of terrifying free-fall? I know that played a big part in the support for Obama in my area. John McCain ran as "more of the same," by erasing every substantive policy difference between himself and the failed Bush regime, then acted surprised that people had no appetite for that. Meanwhile, Obama ran on a platform of change, and the patent need for change, following the Republican disaster, was so compelling that people were willing to vote for anything different, without even insisting on many details.

In 2016, it'll be interesting to see who the Republicans put up. Will it be another Bush clone? In other words, will it be another establishment guy who systematically erases every difference between himself and the policy orthodoxy that failed so spectacularly between 2001 and 2009, like McCain and Romney did? Or will it be a Republican who identifies where the leadership went wrong during Bush's Reign of Error, and sets forth substantively different policies designed to avoid repeating those mistakes? If the latter, that could win over a lot of those who were turned off by the party's gross incompetence and cultish devotion to failed dogma. But I'm betting we'll see yet another Bush clone. If that's the choice they provide, then even an Obama clone would look pretty damned inviting, given how much better Obama's results have been than Bush's. And if the Democrats diverge a bit from the Obama model, in the direction of a more robustly progressive candidate, that choice will be all the easier.
 

Arkady

President
In the real world - it's nothing for nothing . No they don't create jobs because they have extra money - they do Create Jobs because they have a need for the labor and talent . You don't hire a landscape if you live in a high rise, and you don't pay a tailor if you're a Nudist
That's the point Clinton is going for. You can't create jobs by flooding the potential employers with money, the way the GOP would like to do, nor by tearing down hurdles like regulations. Businesses only hire when there is more demand for their products than they can serve with current staff. As such, it is consumer demand that is ultimately responsible for job creation. And that's why trickle-down economics have such a miserable track record when it comes to the labor market.
 

GreenBean

Council Member
That's the point Clinton is going for. You can't create jobs by flooding the potential employers with money, the way the GOP would like to do, nor by tearing down hurdles like regulations. Businesses only hire when there is more demand for their products than they can serve with current staff. As such, it is consumer demand that is ultimately responsible for job creation. And that's why trickle-down economics have such a miserable track record when it comes to the labor market.

That's your interpretation of what you wish she said, or what you were able to glean out of it. I agree with your syn. that "Businesses only hire when there is more demand for their products than they can serve with current staff." but your interp. is totally out of character for Ms. Clinton
 
Top