Comrade Clinton, Clueless

For those few here that have made any utterances concerning a preference for Hillary and how she would have made a much better president than that bozo we have now, it is time for a reality check. If it was not blatantly obvious before that the differences between the two philosophies would not fill a thimble, that Hillary is as much class warfare, as much elitists snobby ,”Damn those rich people, just not me” and how she is just as Marxist, just as clueless about how the free markets work, take a listen to how she thinks the rich peole around the world are not only skating on their taxes but do zero for productivity:

First, before the usual suspects pipe up with ,”But, but, that was only a small snippet, she must have been taken out of context”, save it, the only way that would be true is if prior to this clip she said something like ,”OK folks, since it is opposites day {somewhere} for the next few minutes just turn everything I say around, then it will make sense”.

Aside from the simple arithmetic problem that they always trip over, that the rich pay way more then their fair share already, it always begs the question, what the hell does she mean by “equitable”?

This same old mime about the rich need to pay more, especially since it always comes from a rich liberal, give it a rest already, it has been played out to death and it is frankly boring. You sissies all march in lock step, but nowhere do you ever say how much is enough. As much as I think François Hollande is so wrong in his projected %75 tax rate for the well off in France (look at all those road runner clouds leaving, kiss all that revenue goodbye you greedy bastard) at least he has the stones to put himself out there and stand up. Hillary, like Obama, keeps crying about the unfairness of it all, but lip service is all that is needed, don’t want to put yourself on record as being too confiscatory.

And did you get that part about the rich not contributing to the growth of their own countries? I vote that as THE dumbest statement made by a politician this year, yes, even dumber then ,”You did not build that”. I guess we won’t mention to her how it is the rich people that start the start ups, companies that hire folks, companies that produce and create wealth, which said wealth btw is then taxed providing much needed revenue for the ever growing governments they tout. It is beyond stupid, I mean, I doubt Obama would say something this stupid, and he is as re distributive as they come, even he sees that rich people do in fact contribute greatly to the growth of this country, of course he wants them to contribute even more, keep shearing those sheep.

Between all the State Dept. blunders over the last week, and all the foreign policy mistakes that we have talked about before, now add this class warfare nonsense, the clear lack of any clarity in how the private sector, the free markets spur growth and prosperity, how ordinary folk take risks spending their own money and time creating businesses where some actually do well and grow, thereby creating hundreds (thousands of new jobs) and making the risk taker rich. But no, that guy is good for nothing, a drag on society, and is meaningless to the country collective.

Hillary is no good, period, and she would make a dreadful president, Obama lite but without charisma and the sloppy golf game. She has no clear vision of American exceptionalism, and would relegate America to that same second world status that Obama sees for us. And seriously, do we really want that Viagra induced horndog running around terrorizing interns?

Comments are closed.

  1. Mississippi Yankee

    Without a bit of remorse I’ve referred to this ‘bint’ as Her Filthiness for at least 15 years. Watching her, from afar, she has shown no respect for any underling. Stories from the Secret Service and WH staff are legend.

    But in my humble opinion your belief that she would be “Obama lite but without charisma” is very short sighted. If and when her rule ever comes to pass she will show the world that Joseph Stalin was a rank amateur.

    Uncle Joe changed is name to Stalin because it meant ‘steel’. I predict that this harridan will change her’s to something along the lines of Titanium Cock.

    Thumb up 3

  2. grady

    Please CM, entertain me. I have 3 statements below that reflect what rich was talking about. You are contending that only a fringe of the population believes these things?

    1. The rich pay not only a fair share of taxes, but probably more than they should considering the benefits they get out of it.

    2. The rich do contribute to the growth of the country.

    3. This is just another example of class warfare. They say the rich aren’t paying their fair share without stating what they should pay. % of income, % on captial gains. Without any statement of what they think the rich pay they are just enciting hatred of “those people” who are rich.

    Only 10% (or less) of the people believe this?

    Thumb up 6

  3. Dave D

    Grady:

    Don’t expect someone who lives in a different country AND thinks he is smarter than the rest of us AND has a proven ability to not listen to other points of view to “get it” wrt what a “typical” American believes.

    Good post, btw!

    Thumb up 3

  4. Kimpost

    1. What’s more? What’s enough? Depends on the situation, depends on the taxes, depends on the consequences.

    2. Eh, of course they do. Even “Her Filthiness” above would agree with that. But perhaps it’s just my bias preventing me from seeing her as Stalin. Eh, make that the one who “will show the world that Joseph Stalin was a rank amateur.” Those sentiments actually get thumbs up around here.

    The overblown vitriol is what leads some people here to the fringes.

    3. Taxes are complicated. What kind of numbers are you expecting to hear? You”ve already heard what Obama wants to do with regards to taxes. That’s apparently not too high, in the eyes of his administration.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Poosh

    François Hollande

    Unless I’m mistaken, once he got into power, he had to backtrack. Currently the UK Conservative government oppresses the rich with a higher tax lash than Hollande has. Alas.

    Thumb up 0

  6. grady

    Kimpost

    I know the 3 topics can be debated quite a bit, but I was only trying to point out that these are not fringe opinions. I think a lot of people who vote R believe these things and it is a liberal means of belittling the ideas by calling them from the fringe.

    “Her filthiness” isn’t a nice reference, but that is politics. I wish there could be manners in political discourse, but it never seems to last. I like to see Stalin used as a reference every now and then because Hitler gets used too much.

    Point 3 was just to show the oft-used class warfare line in use once again. I wasn’t trying to debate what taxes should be, but neither was Hillary.

    Thumb up 0

  7. richtaylor365 *

    Grady, Kimpost knows perfectly well what you are talking about, but since Hillary’s statement can’t be defended, can’t be explained, and can’t be turned or twisted into anything resembling the truth, it is far easier to deflect ,”Well, certainly rational people can differ on what exactly the rich should be paying”, no shit Sherlock, but that was not the point of the post, was it?

    Thumb up 1

  8. Dave D

    Re the deflection:

    The “rich” are already paying the majority (by far) of the taxes in the US. wtf is the major malfunction in the liberal brain that prhohibits them from applying that fact to thier “fairness” equation? Seriously…….

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    Please CM, entertain me.

    As you wish! I hope you like thumbs all pointing in the same direction.

    I have 3 statements below that reflect what rich was talking about. You are contending that only a fringe of the population believes these things?

    It was really in direct response to what MW said (the Stalin comparison), but I think there’s also some in what Rich said.
    But sure, I’ll tackle your attempt to bring it back from the fringe….

    1. The rich pay not only a fair share of taxes, but probably more than they should considering the benefits they get out of it.

    When looking at ALL taxes, it seems the share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.

    2. The rich do contribute to the growth of the country.

    If the rich get richer and the middle class go backwards, then it’s not going to do anything for the growth of a country. If they don’t want to pay more tax, then why not pay employees more out of the huge gains they’re making?

    The problem is not just that everyone but the wealthy is claiming a smaller share of the nation’s income; the absolute amount of income they’re getting is declining as well. Median household income has dropped to the levels of the mid-1990s, according to Pew analysis of census data, while the income of the 400 wealthiest Americans rose by a tidy $200 billion last year, according to data released this month by Forbes magazine.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-party-that-truly-believes-in-redistribution/2012/09/25/c5877b7a-0740-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html

    Why? How does this contribute to the growth of a country?

    From the same link:

    The only time in U.S. history when workers substantially benefited from productivity gains was the three decades that followed World War II, when median household income and productivity gains both increased by 102 percent. Not coincidentally, that was also the only period of genuine union power in U.S. history, and the time when the tax code was at its most progressive. During the past quarter-century, as progressivity was lessened and unions diminished, all productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 10 percent, according to research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Of course that period (where “workers substantially benefited from productivity gains) is the one conservatives talk about as the bad times. Apparently relying on the ‘trickle-down’ argument is good. Actual trickle-down isn’t good at all.

    3. This is just another example of class warfare. They say the rich aren’t paying their fair share without stating what they should pay. % of income, % on captial gains. Without any statement of what they think the rich pay they are just enciting hatred of “those people” who are rich.

    The more I hear this whole ‘class warfare’ argument from the right, the more hollow and meainingless is becomes. Following Romney’s recorded comments and his clear disdain and contempt for half the American population, the right should probably park any claims over lefty elitism or ‘class warfare’. Romney has firmly taken ownership of ‘class warfare’.

    Overall there seems to be a complete loss of perspective. Taxes on the rich are historically really quite low. So if low taxes inhibit and frustrate business people, how did businesses ever begin and survive when these people were paying substantially more?

    Only 10% (or less) of the people believe this?

    Here are the ‘fringe’ comments, as far as I’m concerned:

    Comrade Clinton

    …how she is just as Marxist, just as clueless about how the free markets work, take a listen to how she thinks the rich peole around the world are not only skating on their taxes but do zero for productivity:

    It’s not just the Marxist garbage, or the nonsense about being clueless about free markets, it’s the implication that they believe “rich people do zero for productivity”. Like that’s the argument.

    This same old mime about the rich need to pay more, especially since it always comes from a rich liberal,

    Right, because when the 47% say the rich should pay more tax it carries much more weight….

    You sissies all march in lock step

    No, there’s plenty of debate across a wide spectrum.

    Hillary, like Obama, keeps crying about the unfairness of it all, but lip service is all that is needed, don’t want to put yourself on record as being too confiscatory.

    Obama released his tax plan a long time ago. There a million questions Romney has refused to answer about his.

    And did you get that part about the rich not contributing to the growth of their own countries? I vote that as THE dumbest statement made by a politician this year, yes, even dumber then ,”You did not build that”.

    I vote for the 47% comments Romney made. Without a doubt they were dumber. Unless his plan was to get second of course.

    I guess we won’t mention to her how it is the rich people that start the start ups, companies that hire folks, companies that produce and create wealth, which said wealth btw is then taxed providing much needed revenue for the ever growing governments they tout.

    how ordinary folk take risks spending their own money and time creating businesses where some actually do well and grow, thereby creating hundreds (thousands of new jobs) and making the risk taker rich.

    Which is it? ;-)
    The majority of successful business owners rely completely on low to middle income people buying their products and services. When they keep all their profits and get richer and richer, while their workers get poorer and poorer, it doesn’t do much to contribute to the growth of the country. Because the poor and middle class just have to keep borrowing in the absence of wage growth. And the govt has to top up the low wages with programs like the EITC to keep sufficient people above water and spending money to keep the economy above water. How could the cycle be stopped? Well, wage hikes for the poor and middle income people. Sending some of those rewards back down the line. That would mean less household debt, more household spending on those goods and services (so the rich won;t be getting poorer), and less need for govt to spend unsustainable amounts of money on assitance programs and deductions. But it’s not going to happen voluntarily. Things will just keep on going, with unsustainable debt-fuelled consumption booms and then inevitable busts.

    …would relegate America to that same second world status that Obama sees for us.

    I think that’s seriously fringe thinking. As if Obama wants America to be a second-world country.

    Thumb up 0

  10. richtaylor365 *

    If the rich get richer and the middle class go backwards, then it’s not going to do anything for the growth of a country. If they don’t want to pay more tax, then why not pay employees more out of the huge gains they’re making?

    I am always amazed (not really, rhetorical, I know exactly why you do this) that you always narrow your thinking to slant your particular point of view (stuff you have accused others of doing). Instead of just A or B, how about C? Salaries are in line with what the market dictates, nothing new here, but how about this? How about enacting some pro-growth tax and regulatory policies so that we would not have this problem.

    Fifty-five percent of small business owners and manufacturers would not have started their businesses in today’s economy, according to a new poll that also reports 69 percent say President Obama’s regulatory policies have hurt their businesses.

    What do they know that you don’t?

    The more I hear this whole ‘class warfare’ argument from the right, the more hollow and meainingless is becomes.

    To you maybe, but then your biases are apparent.

    Following Romney’s recorded comments and his clear disdain and contempt for half the American population

    Nice narrative, wrong, but nice, you get that from Sullivan?

    Taxes on the rich are historically really quite low.

    You are still not getting it. Which country has the highest corporate tax rate of any industrial nation? It used to be Japan, but they got smart and lowered it. Just last week I posted a link where even Sweden has figured out the correlation between business growth and low taxation.

    …how she is just as Marxist, just as clueless about how the free markets work, take a listen to how she thinks the rich peole around the world are not only skating on their taxes but do zero for productivity:

    The fact that you think that is fringe tells me you are fringe. That is exactly what she said, listen to the video again.

    Right, because when the 47% say the rich should pay more tax it carries much more weight….

    You will have to prove that little assertion of yours, please provide a link where all those 47% want the rich to pay more in taxes.

    Which is it? ;-)

    Why can’t they both be right? You never heard of a successful entrepreneur becoming successful in one area, then deciding to give that up and launch something new? Come on, you really didn’t consider this at all, did you? I guess Steve Jobs was just nutty that way with both Apple and Pixar.

    When they keep all their profits and get richer and richer, while their workers get poorer and poorer,

    Yeah yeah, you are such a proletariat. The workers (which by implication means that they actually have a job) are getting poorer because of the Obama business climate, that and the cost of living is going up. You want real wages to increase, the business climate needs to increase, and just like that link I provided earlier said, small business owners think this guy is a disaster for the economic health of their business.

    How could the cycle be stopped?

    Asked and answered already.

    But it’s not going to happen voluntarily.

    Of course not, we have to send those bastards packing and get new people in there.

    I think that’s seriously fringe thinking. As if Obama wants America to be a second-world country.

    Dinesh D’Souza wrote an entire book (and movie) based squarely on that premise, you should check it out, you know, like what you say you do here, to get all sides.

    BTW here is the entire transcript of the speech for anyone interested.

    Just tell me flat out, did she really say ,”One,two,three jinks…………opposites day”?

    Thumb up 2

  11. CM

    I am always amazed (not really, rhetorical, I know exactly why you do this) that you always narrow your thinking to slant your particular point of view (stuff you have accused others of doing). Instead of just A or B, how about C?

    I’m mostly just throwing it out there for discussion. I’m always hopeful they’ll be a decent discussion to be had out of these things. I’m perfectly fine with people explaining to me how I’m wrong. Mostly people would rather just tell me I’m stupid though.

    Salaries are in line with what the market dictates, nothing new here, but how about this? How about enacting some pro-growth tax and regulatory policies so that we would not have this problem.

    The market is a miserable failure on wages then. But that’s because it doesn’t have anything to do with the actual costs of living. Which is why the Govt has to step in to constantly try and correct the failure. But, as we all know, that’s unsustainable. So how else do we correct the failure? Or is it your belief that there is no failure because the link between low and middle incomes wage levels are irrelevant to the cost of living, and we shouldn’t even be comparing (really I’m asking the same question as I do often: does ideology trump reality)?

    What do they know that you don’t?

    A majority if business owners wouldn’t have started their businesses in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime recession? How is that surprising? Also, how is it surprising that the majority business owners would call for less regulation (in all their answerrs)? On what planet would they not?

    Anyway, I favour a low corporate tax rate. Ours has been reducing, I’m on board with it.

    I’d be interested in knowing that the specific “federal regulations” and “decisions” are. I mean more specific than laid out in their powerpoint presentation of the results.
    http://pos.org/2012/09/nfib-and-nam-survey-of-small-businesses-and-manufacturers/
    On page 14 the second biggest challenge facing these businesses is apparently “Government Spending”. What do they mean?
    Why does the stat on Pg 17 say that 51% of small business owners wouldn’t start a business today when the headline at our link says 55%? The 55% figure appears to be for all businesses. For really small businesses with revenue under $100K the figure is less than 50%.

    To you maybe, but then your biases are apparent.

    It seems to be the more a person complains about ‘class warfare’, the more likely they are to engage in exactly the same thing (they just don’t seem to realise it).

    Nice narrative, wrong, but nice, you get that from Sullivan?

    No directly from Romney himself. No spin or dishonest cherry picking required (unlike with Obama’s ‘you didn’t build that’). Do you have some new language gymnastics to explain it that I haven’t heard?

    You are still not getting it. Which country has the highest corporate tax rate of any industrial nation? It used to be Japan, but they got smart and lowered it. Just last week I posted a link where even Sweden has figured out the correlation between business growth and low taxation.

    Again, I’m all for lowering corporate tax rates.

    The fact that you think that is fringe tells me you are fringe.

    I don’t go around calling people Marxist, or any equivalent.

    That is exactly what she said, listen to the video again.

    No need. I know exactly what she said. That line doesn’t seem to fit well with the rest of what she said. The only way it does make any sort of sense is to apply it to the audience she was speaking to. My response was applying it in a more general sense to western countries. But I would disagree with her that “rich people everywhere…..do not contribute to the growth of their own countries”. That is patently untrue.

    BTW the entire paragraph was:

    it is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally. And so it means for leaders telling powerful people things they don’t want to hear. It means being transparent about budgets and revenues and bringing corruption to light. And when that happens, we shouldn’t punish countries for uncovering corruption. We should reward them for doing so. And it means putting in place regulations designed to attract and protect investment.

    Ironically the whole speech was about getting private development going in poor countries. Rather than them relying on development assistance aid. Moving from aid to investment.

    You will have to prove that little assertion of yours, please provide a link where all those 47% want the rich to pay more in taxes.

    I should have said “if”. If they said it. Because your statement suggests it’s worse if the rich suggest the rich should pay more. We know full well what the feeling is around here about the poor asking the rich to pay more. Romney talked about that on the tape.
    I certainly don’t believe, as Romney and many others do, that 47% of the US population wants the rich to pay more tax.

    Why can’t they both be right?

    Of course they are both right. Which is why it was strange why you seemed to be emphasising one or the other at different times for no apparent reason. It was bitchy of me to pick it up, no argument there.

    Yeah yeah, you are such a proletariat.

    You’re responding to a quote where I summarised some stats about the median household income level and the increase in wealth by the super rich in the last year. My opinion isn’t really relevant to those stats.

    The workers (which by implication means that they actually have a job) are getting poorer because of the Obama business climate, that and the cost of living is going up. You want real wages to increase, the business climate needs to increase, and just like that link I provided earlier said, small business owners think this guy is a disaster for the economic health of their business.

    Again, I’d love to see a survey at any time where a majority of business owners answered in a way which said they were happy with regulations as they are.
    Over the last few decades I understand that the portion of profits going back into labor has been steadily decreasing. There is something going wrong somewhere. Where business owners used to see less personal wealth and put money back into companies, they seem (more and more) to be wanting to personal realise the rewards themselves. Do you disagree?

    Asked and answered already.

    You’re basically just saying “business as usual”. Follow the theory. I’m not sure it’s as good a theory as it used to be.

    Dinesh D’Souza wrote an entire book (and movie) based squarely on that premise, you should check it out, you know, like what you say you do here, to get all sides.

    I’m sure he did. The market is awash with ideological political books “of great importance”. It would take a lifetime to read them.

    Just tell me flat out, did she really say ,”One,two,three jinks…………opposites day”?

    ;-) Nope, she did say it.

    Thumb up 0

  12. grady

    CM – The 47% line seems to bug you but the “you didn’t build that” (YDBT) line doesn’t. I hope you can realize that if one line offends you but the other doesn’t, then you are politically biased.

    I think this one cuts both ways pretty easy. The 47% was a line that was used at a fundraiser to rally the sentiment and it has its roots in the truth. 47% of filers don’t pay income tax. Many of those folks do work and pay other taxes and are not trying to milk their lives from the government teat. YDBT was also a line meant to rally the sentiment and also has roots in the truth. No business owner built the infrastructure or founded the USA & state & environment that they succeeded within. But, it implies that many small business owners or other successful businessmen had nothing to do with their success. That they were lucky or fortunate or some other line that has been used in the past. BS – people do have a say in their success.

    My only point (i obviously have been drinking beer to have typed this much for this point) is that this is a simple test to see if you take politics too seriously. If you can’t see both sides of each one of those statements, then you likely will never be able to say many good words about the opposite party. Not that this revelation will change anything, but it may allow you to see that the other guy isn’t evil and maybe doesn’t eat kittens for dinner.

    But dude, your opinion on Romney is biased.

    Maybe you guys could have a beer together.

    Thumb up 1

  13. Mississippi Yankee

    I like to see Stalin used as a reference every now and then because Hitler gets used too much.

    I use Stalin in reference to Her Filthiness because:
    1) he too was a Marxist
    2) he is the only ’round-eye’ in the top three murdering evil mother f*ckers of the 20th century. Mao- bigger numbers Pol Pot- sheer cruelty
    3) he was famous for disposing of former friends when their usefulness waned. Although he may never have suicided one…

    Thumb up 0

  14. richtaylor365 *

    I’m always hopeful they’ll be a decent discussion to be had out of these things

    I am of the opinion that a rising tide lifts all boats, meaning that the government can do a lot to remove their boot from the neck of small business owners and if they would just butt out, businesses could grow their business and hire more workers.

    The market is a miserable failure on wages then

    The market is fluid, a miserable economic environment could translate into miserable wages, but nothing that a rejiggering of pro-growth tax and regulatory policies could not cure.

    Which is why the Govt has to step in to constantly try and correct the failure.

    Backasswards thinking, government meddling does more harm then good.

    So how else do we correct the failure?

    We let the free markets (like liquids) find their own level, along with the removal (to a degree, I recognize that some minimal meddling is necessary) of governmental intrusion. I know I sound like a broken record, but let government do what they can do , safety net stuff and the like, but the pure mechanics of capitalism, STAY OUT.

    A majority if business owners wouldn’t have started their businesses in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime recession?

    {pulling hair out} That’s not what they said and you know it.

    On what planet would they not?

    That would assume (wrongly) that they are against ALL regulations effecting their business and we both know that this is not true.

    Anyway, I favour a low corporate tax rate. Ours has been reducing, I’m on board with it.

    Bitchin’, now can you get those clowns over here on board.

    It seems to be the more a person complains about ‘class warfare’, the more likely they are to engage in exactly the same thing (they just don’t seem to realise it).

    ‘splain that to me, how am I engaging in class warfare?

    Do you have some new language gymnastics to explain it that I haven’t heard?

    That’s not what I heard. You can quibble with his %47 figure, I would, and I believe he has reset that number, but the underlining premise holds water.

    BTW the entire paragraph was:

    Oh, I see, this is another of those “You did not build that” switcheroos, weak sauce. Well, at least I have you on board with her original nonsense.

    Ironically the whole speech was about getting private development going in poor countries

    .

    And ironically, they just can’t help themselves, can they? Take any topic on the planet, any good cause or endeavor and without breaking a sweat they can launch into their typical class warfare shtick , never pass up an opportunity to bash the rich, so predictable.

    Again, I’d love to see a survey at any time where a majority of business owners answered in a way which said they were happy with regulations as they are.

    You mean ,”As they WERE?”, can’t we by implication infer that since they are complaining about the regulations now, that if you remove those and get it back to the way it was, that they would be happy with that?

    Over the last few decades I understand that the portion of profits going back into labor has been steadily decreasing. There is something going wrong somewhere. Where business owners used to see less personal wealth and put money back into companies, they seem (more and more) to be wanting to personal realise the rewards themselves. Do you disagree?

    I have not actually thought about that, but I’m not ready to buy into that premise just yet. You would have to show a correlation between a decrease in monies going into labor (if in fact that is true) with an increase in monies going into the owners of the business. Now I’m not talking about those owners getting richer, they could be getting richer from any number of factors, no, you have to show connecting dots between those two.

    ;-) Nope, she did say it.

    I knew it

    Have fun on your trip, spend time with the family and stay off the internet :)

    Thumb up 2

  15. Xetrov

    Following Romney’s recorded comments and his clear disdain and contempt for half the American population

    No directly from Romney himself. No spin or dishonest cherry picking required (unlike with Obama’s ‘you didn’t build that’).

    The bias (or complete blindness) in that is just…mind boggling.

    Thumb up 6