Hillary Recession?

[anatta]

This economy may be perilously close to recession. That was the message of the second-quarter real GDP report and its meager 1.2 percent growth rate.

Over the past year, real GDP has slipped to a paltry 1.2 percent. Business investment continues to fall. Building and factory construction has dropped sharply. Productivity is flat. The profits recession is still in force.


And what's the Hillary Clinton plan? Tax us into prosperity.

In her own words at the DNC on Thursday night, this is the fix: "Wall Street, corporations, and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes." Why? "Not because we resent success. [!] Because when more than 90 percent of gains have gone to the top 1 percent, that's where the money is."

Let me get this right. In order to spur growth, Hillary intends to raise taxes on individuals, businesses, capital gains, stock trading and firms that move overseas (which they do because the U.S. has the most uncompetitive tax system in the corporate world). In addition, Hillary's door is open for a carbon tax, higher payroll taxes, and a gun tax of 25 percent.

She also argued in Philadelphia that the economy is not working the way it should because our democracy isn't working the way it should.

Huh?

What she's getting at is appointing Supreme Court justices who "will get money out of politics" and passing "a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United."

Citizens United removed spending limits for super-PACs. And yet those mean and nasty super-PACs have thus far benefited from pro-Hillary hedge-fund contributions to the tune of $48.5 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has received only $19,000 from hedge funds.

Get it? Citizens United, according to Hillary, is the source of our weak recovery and must be overturned. Meanwhile, she is the big beneficiary of the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited political donations.

Next there are the recurring themes of class warfare and inequality, roots of evil according to Hillary. Turns out that the top 1 percent received a big share of income growth during the recovery. Okay, but it also suffered the biggest loss during the Great Recession.

Research from Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute shows that during the recession, the top 1 percent lost 36 percent of its income while the bottom 90 percent lost 12 percent. And through 2014, the top 1 percent was still poorer by 18 percent than it was in 2000. That's compared to a 9 percent decline for the rest of us.

According to Winship, income for the top 1-percenters was basically no higher in 2014 than in 2000. Turns out that group bumped into the same income stagnation suffered by the U.S. middle class since 2000.

And according to new studies by Aparna Mathur of AEI, raising top marginal tax rates reduces growth incentives and yields very few revenues. Yet in addition to higher tax rates, Hillary wants $1 trillion in new spending programs.

The numbers also don't add up for Obama, who defended his so-called recovery at the DNC and even called Hillary, a 30-year member of the establishment, a change-maker.

Obama's seven-year recovery averaged 2.1 percent real growth at an annualized rate. For historical comparison, after seven years, JFK's economy increased by 5.4 percent yearly and Reagan's by 4.5 percent.

Did JFK and Reagan beget long booms by raising taxes? No. They cut tax rates across the board.

Hillary is a combination of Barack Obama 3.0 and Bernie Sanders 2.0. This is not change. This will not yield strong growth, lift jobs and wages, and make America more globally competitive.

A week prior to the DNC, Donald Trump offered a different perspective at the RNC:

"America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers overall ... We are going to lift restrictions on the production of American energy ... With these new economic policies, trillions of dollars will start flowing into our country."

So Trump wants to reduce tax rates and regulations, unleash energy, and make America the most hospitable investment destination in the world. Hillary wants to raise taxes, regulations, and spending, and put the energy sector out of business. (She would abolish coal and oil-and-gas fracking.)

No wonder the blue-collar, hard-hat, Democratic middle class is going for Trump.

Hillary is not an agent of change. Nor does she have any idea how to restore rapid economic growth. Instead, she is a prisoner of the Left. Tax the rich, inequality, redistribution.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_131379.html

[Legion Troll]

Trump will do whatever Vlad instructs him to do, and you will approve of it.

Trump for prison.

[anatta]

there are the recurring themes of class warfare and inequality, roots of evil according to Hillary. Turns out that the top 1 percent received a big share of income growth during the recovery. Okay, but it also suffered the biggest loss during the Great Recession.

Research from Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute shows that during the recession, the top 1 percent lost 36 percent of its income while the bottom 90 percent lost 12 percent. And through 2014, the top 1 percent was still poorer by 18 percent than it was in 2000. That's compared to a 9 percent decline for the rest of us.

According to Winship, income for the top 1-percenters was basically no higher in 2014 than in 2000. Turns out that group bumped into the same income stagnation suffered by the U.S. middle class since 2000.

I have doubts about this part -but Clinton's tax and spend is not going to work if the GDP is this bad.
It slows growth, and growth is already anemic..

Better to close loopholes and get the plutocrats to pay their fair share then all these new taxes

[Legion Troll]

Vlad will instruct Trump and you will approve.

Trump for prison.

[Rune]

I have doubts about this part -but Clinton's tax and spend is not going to work if the GDP is this bad.
It slows growth, and growth is already anemic..

Better to close loopholes and get the plutocrats to pay their fair share then all these new taxes

You have doubts but you posted it anyway?


Did it ever occur to you that if half of an article is total bullshit the source might be useless?

[anatta]

You have doubts but you posted it anyway?
:

Did it ever occur to you that if half of an article is total bullshit the source might be useless?

OMG..

I have (serious)doubts about the redacted paragraph talking about the 1%'rs. i.e. the part I specifically quoted on post 2.

The rest of the article seems clear enough - but it's also available for debate

[PostmodernProphet]

This economy may be perilously close to recession. That was the message of the second-quarter real GDP report and its meager 1.2 percent growth rate.

Over the past year, real GDP has slipped to a paltry 1.2 percent. Business investment continues to fall. Building and factory construction has dropped sharply. Productivity is flat. The profits recession is still in force.


And what's the Hillary Clinton plan? Tax us into prosperity.

In her own words at the DNC on Thursday night, this is the fix: "Wall Street, corporations, and the super-rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes." Why? "Not because we resent success. [!] Because when more than 90 percent of gains have gone to the top 1 percent, that's where the money is."

Let me get this right. In order to spur growth, Hillary intends to raise taxes on individuals, businesses, capital gains, stock trading and firms that move overseas (which they do because the U.S. has the most uncompetitive tax system in the corporate world). In addition, Hillary's door is open for a carbon tax, higher payroll taxes, and a gun tax of 25 percent.

She also argued in Philadelphia that the economy is not working the way it should because our democracy isn't working the way it should.

Huh?

What she's getting at is appointing Supreme Court justices who "will get money out of politics" and passing "a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United."

Citizens United removed spending limits for super-PACs. And yet those mean and nasty super-PACs have thus far benefited from pro-Hillary hedge-fund contributions to the tune of $48.5 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has received only $19,000 from hedge funds.

Get it? Citizens United, according to Hillary, is the source of our weak recovery and must be overturned. Meanwhile, she is the big beneficiary of the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited political donations.

Next there are the recurring themes of class warfare and inequality, roots of evil according to Hillary. Turns out that the top 1 percent received a big share of income growth during the recovery. Okay, but it also suffered the biggest loss during the Great Recession.

Research from Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute shows that during the recession, the top 1 percent lost 36 percent of its income while the bottom 90 percent lost 12 percent. And through 2014, the top 1 percent was still poorer by 18 percent than it was in 2000. That's compared to a 9 percent decline for the rest of us.

According to Winship, income for the top 1-percenters was basically no higher in 2014 than in 2000. Turns out that group bumped into the same income stagnation suffered by the U.S. middle class since 2000.

And according to new studies by Aparna Mathur of AEI, raising top marginal tax rates reduces growth incentives and yields very few revenues. Yet in addition to higher tax rates, Hillary wants $1 trillion in new spending programs.

The numbers also don't add up for Obama, who defended his so-called recovery at the DNC and even called Hillary, a 30-year member of the establishment, a change-maker.

Obama's seven-year recovery averaged 2.1 percent real growth at an annualized rate. For historical comparison, after seven years, JFK's economy increased by 5.4 percent yearly and Reagan's by 4.5 percent.

Did JFK and Reagan beget long booms by raising taxes? No. They cut tax rates across the board.

Hillary is a combination of Barack Obama 3.0 and Bernie Sanders 2.0. This is not change. This will not yield strong growth, lift jobs and wages, and make America more globally competitive.

A week prior to the DNC, Donald Trump offered a different perspective at the RNC:
So Trump wants to reduce tax rates and regulations, unleash energy, and make America the most hospitable investment destination in the world. Hillary wants to raise taxes, regulations, and spending, and put the energy sector out of business. (She would abolish coal and oil-and-gas fracking.)

No wonder the blue-collar, hard-hat, Democratic middle class is going for Trump.

Hillary is not an agent of change. Nor does she have any idea how to restore rapid economic growth. Instead, she is a prisoner of the Left. Tax the rich, inequality, redistribution.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...on_131379.html

not a problem.....she can blame it on Obama......

[cawacko]

We have an econony where the Feds are afraid to raise interest rates that are almost zero for fear of sending it into recession. What does that tell us.

[Rune]

We have an econony where the Feds are afraid to raise interest rates that are almost zero for fear of sending it into recession. What does that tell us.

What does it tell us Cawacko?
Perhaps that the metrics of gauging the economy are bullshit?
No? Well then perhaps the economic engine of the country was broken during the Bush admin and still isn't close to working correctly yet

[anatta]

We have an econony where the Feds are afraid to raise interest rates that are almost zero for fear of sending it into recession. What does that tell us.

it tells me that raising any taxes is a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a "transaction tax" designed to go after programmed traders-
but the real problem once again is the upcoming unfunded entitlement liabilities

[Rune]

OMG..

I have (serious)doubts about the redacted paragraph talking about the 1%'rs. i.e. the part I specifically quoted on post 2.

The rest of the article seems clear enough - but it's also available for debate

Oh I am sorry anatta but your childish article is not worth debating in any way...it is total and complete bullshit.
Jack Lalaine did less stretching and leaping you fucking mental midget.

[Rune]

it tells me that raising any taxes is a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a "transaction tax" designed to go after programmed traders-
but the real problem once again is the upcoming unfunded entitlement liabilities

Zipperhead; cutting taxes is only an economic stimulant when taxes are too high.
(Witness Bush II's tax cuts which led to demolishion of the world economy.
Are you really this fucking stupid or is it pure partisanship?

[PostmodernProphet]

We have an econony where the Feds are afraid to raise interest rates that are almost zero for fear of sending it into recession. What does that tell us.

its an election year?.....

[Minister of Truth]

Blaming Crooked Hillary for the recession reminds me of blaming Van Buren for the Panic of 1837, because it wasn't politically expedient to blame it on Jackson, who was the real cause.

[Celticguy]

We have an econony where the Feds are afraid to raise interest rates that are almost zero for fear of sending it into recession. What does that tell us.

That we are screwed.
Don't forget the 85 billion a month in printend money we give the fat cats.