Monday, October 27, 2014

Hillary's Misspeak... Or Was It it?...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth



Hillary Clinton said the following.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

Then later.

“Trickle down economics has failed. I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades,” she said. “Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Are they one in the same, with the second simply clarification of the first? What is is the logical extension with the tying of the two together? Is she suggesting something without saying it outright?

Answers to the above questions will remain obscure, H. Clinton is a politician and politicians never seem to speak with clarity and steely consistency. And we wonder why the people of our nation have little confidence in it's leaders.

Which begs the question, is it the leaders and the politicians or is it the people who elect them, often without understanding the complexity of issues facing the nation? And, we often continue to elect those who fail to act in the best interests of their constituency or the nation.

Via: Memeorandum

20 comments:

  1. We could be generous and say the second corrects the first.

    However, she attacks the wrong thing: tax breaks aren't nearly as bad as outright corporate welfare, which has been blasting from ObamaCo like a firehose. It would be refreshing if she opposed the handouts to corporations a well. Such as the massive handout to GM and Chrysler which they used to fund factories in China, overseas.

    That policy is nothing but pure trickle-down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it would be more generous to say she got it right initially and misspoke in the second.

      Delete
  2. Such as the massive handout to GM and Chrysler which they used to fund factories in China, overseas.

    Would that be trickle out? Or maybe wave out...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Hillary taxes ALL businesses at the same fair rate with no loopholes for any (and no special extra taxes for some businesses), and NO bailouts, handouts, incentives, or loan guarantees, I would strongly be in favor of this policy.

      Would you be on board too, Les+

      Delete
  3. It depends on what that fair tax would be. Some might consider a 90% tax on profit fair.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe look at what other countries charge, and charge a little less? To stop forcing companies to leave.

    Oh. And influence peddling operations...from Koch bros PACs to the SEIU wouldn't be exempt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hillary messed up because she's a Conservative Democrat trying to talk like a Progressive. Because that is what Conserva-Dems do when the run for president. The American people love Progressivism and love it when their Democratic candidates for president talk like Progressives. This is why they all do it. A real Progressive like Warren or Sanders should run... but they wouldn't have the corporate money behind them like Conserva-Dems Hillary Clinton, Obama, or Bill Clinton.

    BTW, more BS in regards to GM and Chrysler? Let me guess... if I respond what I say will be an "old bone", right? "Old bone" when I respond, but not an "old bone" when dmarks brings it up...

    As for corporate taxes, "U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011... The US... taxes its corporations less... than its foreign competitors" (source). No companies are being forced to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dervish, your comment narrowly escaped the spam box.

    So lets be clear, stay on topic, make legitimate points even when they might be disagreed with, and cut the DAMNED references to OLD BONES. Comments will then be posted.

    The management appreciates everyones understanding, regardless how grudgingly it may be given.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW, a 12.1% corporate tax rate is low if it is on profit after all expenses. A 24-30% would be more reasonable.

    Corporate profit spend on technology and job creation here in the USA should be taxed at a lower rate. The 12% might be about right, but personally I think it should be even lower. say 6-8%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN: If one seeks sources with a fairly good reputation for accuracy (that aren't pure fringe opinion sites), one does find that the US corporate tax rate is indeed just about the highest in the world

      http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/09/eric-bolling/does-us-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

      No surprise that dozens of countries have been forced to leave by this in the past few decades.

      Delete
    2. It has been said, and I believe accurately, that figures don't lie but liars do figure.

      I remember a time in 1996 when I was writing a justification for the purchase of a new state of the art Doublefacer for the corrugator (a machine to convert three lines of paper into corrugated board) in my plant. After submitting to my boss he ask I find additional cost savings that could be attributed to the purchase. I told him I had been over the numbers a dozen times and there was really no more savings I could honestly represent. He said show some savings in adhesive usage to which I replied we had used that so much we were already running combined paper without adhesives. He said DO IT ANYWAY.

      Delete
  8. And there is nothing older and tireder than attempting to use hyper-partisan opinion sites and one's own blog rants as sources. Sorry, it doesn't work. There are plenty of examples on how to source in arguments one can learn from. If they want to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Politifact link dmarks gives addresses a statement concerning whether the rate on the books is one of the highest in the world, which it is (hence the true rating). But there is a difference between the tax rate and the effective tax rate. Sorry, but ignoring facts because you don't like where they come from doesn't work. It's old and tired ad hominem intended to distract from the facts. What the effective tax rate is isn't an "opinion". BTW, if we were to eliminate the loopholes I'd be OK with lowering the rate, although not as low as RN wants to go.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some additional sources. Perhaps one might be acceptable to dmarks?

    An article by Bruce Bartlett (whom RN quoted in a prior post) on the NYT Economix blog which says the GAO looked at "...the taxes corporations actually pay [and found] that in 2010, profitable corporations based in the United States had an effective federal tax rate of 13 percent on their worldwide income, 17 percent including state and local taxes. (Link).

    A CNN Money article titled "GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%" says "U.S. companies face the highest official corporate tax rate in the world. But there's a big difference between the rates set out by law and the cash that's actually collected". (link).

    Although I guess one could dispute these figures by going along with some conspiracy theory that the GAO under Obama is fudging the math... even though Wikipedia notes that the GAO is "an independent agency" and "part of the legislative branch". (link).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Much better sources.

    The same criticism of using fringe opinion sites that I used on you applies to me, if course if I do it. I expect to he held accountable if I use Newsmax or Rush Limbaugh as sources. BB-Idaho "enlightened" me about CNS News.

    And I will always give a "what the...?" if Les uses as a source the large-selling Moonie cult newsletter (Washington Times).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anyway, the Presidential election is two years off. Assuming that liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton is the nominee, that's two years for more gaffes like this... and two years for more about-faces like her second quotation in which she attempts to recover from the damage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That isn't what happened, as I already pointed out. Hillary, the Conservative Democrat, was attempting to speak like a Warren-like Progressive in the first quote, and then regressed to speaking like a Conservative Dem in the second quote. The second quotation is the one in which the "damage" occurs.

      Delete
  13. Never mind the fact that the Left-wing politician in question spoke as a liberal in both quotations. But of course one statement was more moderate (I.e. a lot more sane) than the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never mind the fact that the Conservative Democrat Hillary Clinton spoke as a Liberal in the first but not the second quotation... it was the first one quotation which is the "saner" (more correct), as it is a reference to the fact that DEMAND creates jobs. Conservatives like to spin the narrative as corporations and business "creating jobs" out of the goodness of their hearts, but would a product that nobody wanted sell? Would the job the business "created" exist for very long?

      Delete
  14. Dervish is displaying typical trollish behavoir. Behavoir which is intended to disrupt and sabotage discussion of views not in line with his own.

    What makes his comments ultimately trollish is that he often refuses to accept it when everyone else has left a post behind.

    Dervish, the wise man knows when his case has been lost.

    BTW, without demand there is no need for production. Demand for a product or service results in production, or pur another way the action or actions required to fill the demand thus creating jobs for people to fill.

    The risk takers, the businessman or woman that take all the risks and responsibilities for operating a business to fill a particular demand can reasonably concerted offering job opportunities.

    Time for a beer.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.