Trump claimed today that Clinton’s donors won’t let her reduce taxes for corporations and the wealthy. Wonder whether anyone else will notice that he said that.
Outside the factory setting [which Clinton toured today before she gave her economic-policy speech], a scattering of pro-Trump protesters held “Hillary for Prison” signs and criticized Mrs. Clinton’s connections to Wall Street. And more than 1,000 miles away in Florida, Mr. Trump echoed that critique.
“She doesn’t have the talent” to jumpstart the economy, Mr. Trump said. “If she wanted to do it, she couldn’t because her donors won’t let her.”
Wielding a chart, Mr. Trump said the Obama administration’s policies that Mrs. Clinton wants to continue have led to plummeting homeownership rates and anemic economic growth. He also suggested that Mrs. Clinton wanted to raise taxes by $1.3 trillion and place more of that burden on the middle class — something that she has not proposed.
“Many workers are earning less money in real dollars than they were in 1970,” Mr. Trump said. “And then you wonder why they’re angry.”
— In Michigan, Hillary Clinton Calls Donald Trump Enemy of ‘the Little Guy’, Amy Chozick and Alan Rappeport, New York Times, today
Okay, so Clinton’s Wall Street donors won’t let her eliminate the estate tax and dramatically cut corporate taxes and taxes on wealthy individuals, which is what the Trump plan—devised by his Wall Street hedge-fund and real estate mogul advisers, his Heritage Foundation-economist adviser, and Edgar Bergen, er, Paul Ryan—says is the surefire way to jump-start the economy. Those folks know that will work because this kind of thing worked so well during the Bush administration.
Well, all right, it worked well in conjunction with bank deregulation and unregulated shadow banking that caused that skyrocketing homeownership rate during the G.W. Bush administration. The highs from which homeownership rates plummeted after the banking and shadow banking industries collapsed in the months before Obama’s inauguration.
The plummeting of which made Trump happy, he has said, because he was able to pick up so much real estate on the (very) cheap once all those homes went into foreclosure.
But Trump is crediting the wrong president for creating that buying opportunity. His memory fails him.
And it’s not only his long-term memory that fails him. His short-term memory is slipping, too. He’s a businessman, so I assume he follows the trend of the stock market and corporate profit reports, or at least the profits of, say, the Fortune 100. But apparently he forgets from one day to the next. And one week to the next. Not to mention one year to the next, although that would be long-term memory, I guess. Anyway, comparisons don’t seem to be his thing.
Which I guess explains why he doesn’t know that both the stock market and large-corporation profits are at record highs. So high, in fact, that corporate CEOs don’t know what to do with all that money. Although they do know what they won’t do with it: raise compensation for their rank-and-file workers and invest in, say, research and development. You know, the stuff that could result in economic growth: spending by these corporations that would obviate the point of dramatic tax cuts, which Ryan, the Heritage Foundation, and Trump’s hedge fund and real estate mogul friends say the corporations would spend on compensation raises for their rank-and-file workers. Well, all the tax-cut savings that are left after all the spending on research and development. Because money isn’t fungible after all.
There’s something about money from tax cuts that would make corporations spend the money in ways other than increased dividends, acquisitions of other companies, and mega-increases in top-executive-suite compensation. And Paul Ryan has the secret to what it is, and he’ll only share it with Trump.
Anyway, at least we now know why Clinton, unlike Trump, wouldn’t eliminate the estate tax and dramatically cut corporate taxes and taxes on wealthy individuals. Her donors won’t let her.
And to think I’ve wanted to see the reversal of Citizens United. How shortsighted of me.
Yes, Beverly, you are “shortsighted” and not privy to some of the very secret stuff. Lucky for you though, I’m an old Labor-Lefty and thereby accustomed to observing from the shadows of obscurity. And I know things, not everything, but I’m piecing it all together, just don’t ask me to reveal my sources.
One of the first big clues came from the big D’s clever recognition that the USA has been getting the short end of most every trade deal. I had always thought that the USA having so much influence over the WTO… meant that the Chinese and other ’emergers’ had every right to complain about their piddly voting shares but the big D didn’t fall for any of that Stiglified nonsense, nope.
Instead, he saw beyond the so-called facts and had a vision. This vision including a mental picture of a billion Chinese and a billion or two other foreigners, all protesting their respective governments to subsidize crucial American imports. Items such as cigarettes and fast-food and corn-syrup inspired soft drinks. Mostly the types of products that have some mysterious propensity to make skinny persons fat like him, and of course who wouldn’t want to be like the big D. So, he has had a vision on how to get all of our money back via tariffs, and that should be enough to make America great again, and to allow for some tax cuts for the citizens who matter. Then, of course, bookoo investment and more products and that of course equates to more jobs in food and beverage processing, and shipping and so on. A virtuous circle that makes us rich and them fat…also.
One of the integral secrets though, hereto applicable, rests on a strong foundation of knowing that Obama founded ISIS. But of course that is no longer a secret. It is part of a larger issue though because as head of ISIS…Obama has been returning the tariff revenues, on the measly 30% of the products that we do tax, back to the countries of origin, but with some preferential treatment to nations with especially dark populations, and of course, as one might expect, Obama has also been supplying ISIS, and the Taliban, with cash that he sends them along with shipments of weapons and such.
It may be worth including too, since you have so much difficulty understanding logical policies and good business practises, that once the tariff gains from Twinkies and other such delights have trickled down to the reality TV types, President Trump intends to produce real estate seminars from the Oval office which will teach all Americans how to get rich (these will be a glitzy version of FDR’s fireside chats according my sources). Then, once all Americans are comfortably rich, probably somewhere in the middle of his first term, nearly all families will benefit from the elimination of estate taxes, problem solved.
As for your dislike of Citizen’s United, well, I haven’t yet spied on the entire Trump team, but so far, it doesn’t seem that anyone involved has ever heard of that decision. Surely though, the big D will always know what to do!
It sounds to me like you have some doubt that Obama founded ISIS. But that’s because you, unlike the Donald, aren’t on Vlad’s email listserve. So you haven’t seen the evidence, taken straight from Hillary’s email server.
*** “She doesn’t have the talent” to jump-start the economy, Mr. Trump said. “If she wanted to do it, she couldn’t because her donors won’t let her.” ***
In the sense of even a blind squirrel finding an acorn now and then, Trump got the first part right. Remember when Hillary said she’d hand the US economy to husband Bill? No doubt that would leave her more time to properly handle any yet un-smashed nations.
The second part is as loony as his claim Obama founded ISIS!
Whatever Trump is doing these days is totally unrelated to actually winning a US election. I’d wager his behavior is going to continue to deteriorate.
What are you going to do with the other logon?
Of course then there’s the fact that nothing happens without the Congress. Maybe Trump thinks he can dump them, maybe in bankruptcy.
Ah. Bankruptcy. I’m relieved. At least the coup will be peaceful.
Well yea, Beverly, I’ve got some doubts, but this subject is rife with conflicting info that is COMPLICATED! For example, the Saudis blame Obama too, contending that Obama should have gotten rid of Assad. That then providing stability (like that in Iraq, lol). Thereby, of course, not allowing ISIS to form in the first place (due to there not being territory to exploit except that in Iraq where Obama is doing what he didn’t do in Syria). So it seems that Big D agrees with the King of the Democracy that the USA is protecting because of course the USA always protects democracies. But then too, the USA is not protecting that particular democracy to the liking of its royal family. But Big D, just to make things more complicated, he has promised to require nations like Saudi Arabia to pay more for their own protection. So Big D doesn’t exactly agree with King, but he does where Obama matters. So it seems that Obama may be more like a ‘founding father’, or just an idea guy, (or lack thereof potentially), than a founder per se. However, as my anonymous sources revealed, Obama has provided funding for ISIS. Our founding fathers on the other hand, only promised money to our freedom fighters but then stiffed them. So maybe Obama ‘is’ more of a founder than he is a founding father. But a founder is usually a ‘hands-on-guy’, Obama though, he lives in DC. So perhaps ‘instigator’ fits better, or ‘mastermind’. But he is more than that since we know now that Obama funded and armed ISIS. So I suppose ‘founder’ is about right unless using more words plays as well. “Rothchildian enabler’ almost works but it is probably too weird and hard to say. And I’ve tried to use ‘diabolical’ in different combinations but that may go unsaid? Ultimately though, the Big D is after-all a celebrity so surely he knows best what his audience will respond to.
Anyway, yea, I have some doubts, but mostly I’m confused.
Ray
*** But he is more than that since we know now that Obama funded and armed ISIS. So I suppose ‘founder’ is about right unless using more words plays as well. ***
I’d give the “founding” of ISIS to the Codpiece Commander, but Obama’s pet neocons quickly adopted the outfit as a perfect tool to ‘whack’ an uppity Iraq, then to sweep into Syria. (Anybody else ever notice that ISIS never attacks Israel?) Regarding Iraq, I saw that when ISIS took over most of Iraq, the US had carefully arranged for Iraq to have no Air Force whatever. So the Zionist project of keeping Iraq in total disarray has worked out very well.
Their destruction of Syria has been quite successful too. Iran remains a problem, but Trump’s campaign of handing the election to Hillary on a platter seems to be proceeding well, and this time next year President Hillary (or Kaine) ought to have Iran in the bomb sight.
“Anybody else ever notice that ISIS never attacks Israel?”
Definite qualifier for most stupid post of the year.
Considering your others that is saying something.
You are still running ahead of CoRev(as hard as he is trying and as many names as he is using).
Ray LaPan-Love,
After a long examination (of 2 seconds — ironically, the scientifically established length of The Donald’s attention span) — I Alone, The Truly Great One (“believe me; trust me on this one; you can take it to the bank”) — I Alone have sussed out those sources you don’t want to reveal — all those pesky journalists with recording devices. Aha! You can’t fool me.
But be warned: If you continue to slander Mr. Trump, I will build a wall across the internet to keep you out — and I will make you pay for it. And if you complain, remember one thing — I have a nuclear arsenal, amigo, and my motto is “if we’ve got it, why not use it.”
Ray LaPan-Love,
Don’t you know The Donald is the true Populist, the sentinel of the people, the committed Vox Populi who will never stop fighting for the little guy:
“If at the end of 90 days I fall in short because I’m somewhat politically incorrect even though I’m supposed to be the smart one and even though I’m supposed to have a lot of good ideas, it’s okay,” he continued. “I go back to a very good way of life.”
The Donald may lose, but he will never be “A Loser.”
HRC may be right on the inheritance tax issue but she is wrong on everything else. Trump may have no fed tax to pay because of the current laws and the same with making all his stuff over seas. These laws were kept in place by the Obama-HRC administration…The government cannot create any new jobs directly but indirectly gov. policies do. New wealth can only be created by growing, mining or making something. Not by any creative finance or accounting tricks that are now so popular on Wall St. and Washington. The Clinton’s are and have been responsible for the largest number of job loss in American history. The Clinton Foundation is not a real charity (only 10% actually goes to charity) but a money laundering scheme they have been used for self enrichment. We cannot as a nation afford HRC’s $1.2 T tax increase to support all the proposed free bees. Make no mistake, the political revolution is not over yet as the past 30 years of Clintonism failed policies has gotten into the mess we are in today. When you say Clinton you really mean and are saying corruption. Only the private sector creates real new jobs through business and capital investment. HRC is not proposing to do this…Clintonism has run our country into the ditch in many ways both economically and politically…
Trump has said something which his Base may eventually hear about.
— “I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them,” he said. President Barack Obama, he added, is “allowing people to get out that are terrible people.”
“Would you try to get the military commissions — the trial court there — to try U.S. citizens?” a reporter asked.
“Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all,” he said. “I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.” —
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article95144337.html#storylink=cpy
The Second Amendment boys and girls are almost paranoid about real and imaginary outrages which could happen to White People like themselves. If they stop and think about it, they’ll understand their gun culture could easily typecast them as terrorists. A Presidential candidate is actually saying that he’d take honest-to-God US citizens (like themselves) and send them off to a concentration camp. Since Trump is beginning to talk like an “ordinary” Republican candidate on other subects and has the rightwingnut Pence as his VP, this was a another poke in the eye to his brighter Base guys.
Looks to me like the man hasn’t stopped digging in his Loser Foxhole.
ISIS is Sunni, Assad, Hizbollah, Iran etc. are enemy of Sunni known as Shiites.
US is friend of Sunni terrorism, the ones called moderates.
Old saying “enemy of my enemy is my firend”.
Israel is off on Shiites including Hizbollah and Iran.
So Saudis like enemies of Iran and Shiites.
ISIS is Sunni extremism, that scares the run of the mill mujahideen whom the US will arm until they shoot at US.
Zachary,
Iraq is 2/3 by number of people within the boundaries Shiite.
ISIS is Sunni, they took over the Sunni areas, quite easily the Iraqi Army being draftees, the Sunnis defected and the Shiite soldiers fled or were butchered.
Faluja etc were the Sunni thorn to US nation building, lots of fighting in 04-06. The Shiite thorn was al sadr etc.
Iraq was run by Shiite majority which irked Saudi and cause US to complain…..
Like BREXIT the majority rules and US often don’t go along.
partition of Iraq makes sense, but that puts 25 million more Shiites in Iran’s sphere.
Ilsm,
That is a wonderful outline of the history of Iraq and Syria since 2003. All that you say is true; there are no facts in your outline that can be denied. Well done.
WR,
Ya’ think there is one person in the entire world that cares about the amount of taxes Trump paid?
I hate the man. Have done so for more than two decades.
What I want is to see exactly who has financed his actions since 2004 when the US banks told him there is not a chance in the world he would ever get another loan from them.
Why US supports Sunni royalty:
What is oddly interesting is the US’ odd view of “realpolitik”.
Seems to be “anything that surrounds Russia is a gain”.
US seems to be advancing the Napoleon agenda leading up to 1812.
Aside from the potential for 15Mbbl crude per day.
Shiites too close to Russia to run Iran!
The US is the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. So much for the need for Saudi oil.
The US signed the nuclear deal with Iran in spite of harsh criticisms from both Israel and Saudi Arabia. The “realpolitik” is to avoid war and nuclear proliferation.
Russia’s border with Europe is approximately 1/5 of her total land mass. So much for surrounding Russia. (The US is located in North America.)
Those European countries that abut Russia are no longer part of the Warsaw Pact, and are quite happy to be free states independent of the Russian occupation they suffered through from 1945-1991. This is what Putin resents most. This is why he seeks to undermine the EU and NATO. This is why the nationalist propaganda campaign within Russia is so important. Above all, he wants to reestablish Russia as a global hegemon, a primary global power such as it was until 1991. That’s why he says the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was not the Great Patriotic War but the demise of the Soviet state.
A main stumbling point between Alexander and Napoleon was the possible establishment of a Duchy of Poland. Their desire for independence from Russian dominance has a long history.
I’m somewhat surprised to learn I’m not the only one with suspicions about the campaign Trump is running. A novel slant on the situation is this:
*** I predict that Trump will never release his tax returns because there is something in those returns he intensely fears being revealed. Shall we speculate about what could be so devastating in his undisclosed tax returns? Is it not possible, possibly even likely, that he might dread the thought, for similar reasons, of filing his financial disclosure papers if he is elected president? ***
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291286-is-trump-deliberately-throwing-the-election-to
There are going to be “consequences” from the coming Hillary landslide. The woman will claim she has a mandate to immediately start doing all the things she has promised. Regarding foreign affairs, she’ll be doing Bush’s 5th and 6th terms. If you thought Obama was bad on the Wars For Israel issue, hunker down.
We’ll get the TPP too. Here is what Hillary recently said “against” it:
*** So my message to every worker in Michigan and across America is this: I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as President. ***
Notice how the TPP will be A-OK if her careful examination shows it now meets the standard of not killing jobs or holding down wages. Recall she was totally FOR the TPP until Sanders made her pretend to be sort of against it.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-full-transcript-economic-speech-489602
Yes, it’s going to be bad.
I notice that you seem to think it is a bad thing for HRC to be OK with a trade deal that increases jobs and wages.
Ms 57,
As for this: “So much for the need for Saudi oil”, it is true that the USA is no longer as beholden to the Saudi Royals, but…the oil itself is less important than what requiring oil trades in dollars is. On that, the Saudi Royals play a major role in maintaining the value of the dollar. They also play along where dollar recycling allows the USA investors to pay relatively lower interest rates than foreign investors competing for global market share. If you want to understand this very complicated subject, the Triffin Dilemma is an important piece of the multi-level puzzle. And it is a must to consider that as 4ish% the global population, US investors own more than half of all global market share, and to put the puzzle together, an understanding of interest rates and currency values is necessary. So, essentially, oil is not nearly as critical as it is so often made out to be, it is a factor of course, but if given too much focus, it will distract you from seeing ‘the forest’.
MS
US imports nearly 50% of the crude oil it “handles”, a small amount is exported as refined product most is used here.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_sndw_dcus_nus_w.htm
Demise of the Soviet state…….Putin resentment, ahh!
The Red Army won the Great Patriotic War, the west reneged as the US is dong today with NATO moving east.
I’ve been reading this site for quite a long time, and have formed the notion that the people who run it have their heads screwed on right. So when I went looking to see how past stories about the dreadful TPP, I expected to see some harsh remarks. Which is precisely what I found.
Trans Pacific Partnership: A new Constitution Daniel Becker | March 10, 2013
“The TPP is presenting a new ideal of social order. It is one I that find represents the worst of humanity.
This is where the sovereignty breaks down and the new social order is created…”
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2013/03/trans-pacific-partnership-new.html
Trans Pacific Partnership Bad for the Middle Class, but How Bad? Kenneth Thomas | April 9, 2013
“This is a bad deal that will put further downward pressure on real wages which have gone 40 years since reaching their peak, that will undermine governments’ ability to regulate, and will strengthen a small group of pharmaceutical, software, entertainment, and publishing companies at the expense of the rest of us.”
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2013/04/trans-pacific-partnership-bad-for.html
Will the US keep winning indefinitely? ISDS, that is Kenneth Thomas | June 30, 2015
“Bottom line: The threat to regulation, democracy, and the rule of law posed by investor-state dispute settlement is very real. The U.S. Trade Rep’s reassurances that the U.S. has never lost in ISDS don’t even make it likely that will continue into the future. We need to pressure Congress to vote down the TPP when negotiations conclude.”
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2015/06/will-the-us-keep-winning-indefinitely-isds-that-is.html
Finally, from another site:
Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages April 13, 2015 Robert E. Scott
How can Hillary help ram this through after she is elected? She can simply follow the pattern of the creators of the US Constitution (the very thing the TPP will help destroy) and declare that after US ratification a Big Meeting will be set up to fix all the niggling little problems. Just like the Bill of Rights did in 1789. Bingo! We’ve got full passage in the Lame Duck, and Hillary delivers to Big Corporations right off the bat. The Big Meeting moves a couple of commas, alters a couple of phrases, and it’s all fixed. The TPP will deliver MORE jobs and HIGHER wages. Because Queen Hillary says so.
Ilsm,
While the Soviets won the Great Patriotic War – their war – it was the Soviets, Americans, Brits and their allies combined who won WWII. Read the names of the signatories to the Nazis’ unconditional surrender – it isn’t the Soviets alone.
The nations freed in the West weren’t occupied; they returned to sovereign state-status. The nations the Soviets occupied were not. It was a fait accompli that had to be accepted. NATO did renege on promises not to expand east, but it, too, is now a fait accompli and Russia has to accept it. The decision to join NATO by the Baltic states, Poland, etc. was made by them as free and democratic nations, unlike the Hungarians or Czechs, for example, who rose up against the occupation of their countries by the Soviets. NATO reneged on nothing in 1945.
There is something wrong when Putin says the 60 million dead in WWII are less important than the demise of the Soviet Union. His goal is to restore Russia to the primary place in the world the Soviets had. That is a political-nationalist goal – which cannot be accomplished now by military occupation.
“How can Hillary help ram this through after she is elected?”
So let me get this straight. You went to all that work to find comments on a policy that HRC has clearly stated is not going to happen on her watch, and asks how she can let it happen on her watch.
Ok, then…………………………
A story I read this morning pretty much mirrors my own thinking about Queen Hillary and the TPP.
*** HENWOOD: You know, there’s a nice passage in Mark Landler’s book on the relationship between Hillary and Obama, in which Obama’s, one of Obama’s aides tells him that Hillary has come out against the TPP, and Obama’s only reaction was to roll his eyes. So you know, she was for it when she was Secretary of State, and now she’s against it. She was against the Colombian free trade deal when she was running in 2008, when she became Secretary of State she supported it, and then she came out against it again, she’s out of office.
So I think what she says about TPP now is just completely not believable. She is almost certain to support it in–maybe there will be some minor, I don’t know, cosmetic tweaks to it. But it’s hard for me to believe that she would oppose the thing wholesale. That’s just not who she is, that’s just not why she’s getting scores of millions of dollars from plutocrats. The Hillary I know is the Hillary of the TPP, not one who’s been against it briefly on the campaign trail.
PERIES: And Bob, let me give you a chance to get in on the TPP statement, as well.
POLLIN: Well, you know, I think Doug is completely right. Nothing she says is believable. She does also say in the speech she acknowledges that previous trade deals turned out to be harmful for working people. She doesn’t acknowledge that, you know, the most important one, NAFTA, that was pushed through by her husband with her fulsome support. So you know, the–and of course the person she picked for vice president, Tim Kaine, had been an ardent supporter of TPP until, I think, the day that she picked him for the vice presidential pick. ***
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16981
So Nafta was passed because HRC supported it.
Yeah, I know a lot of legislation that passed solely because the First Lady supported it. Just like I know a lot of First Ladies who criticized the legislation their husbands signed.
geez
BTW,
There is even stronger evidence that shows that Sanders’ anti corporation schtick was something he would never actually do, that he has been lying all along.
Course that is using Henwood’s thought processes(sic), and I personally believe it is an insane as this TTP thing is at this point.
Sanders voted for the CFMA, one of the great causes of the financial crisis and a gift to Wall Street.
But I wouldn’t say anything like that.