applegrove
applegrove's JournalYesterday he was saying the system works. He started backtracking
on his 'rigged' meme from the weeks before. Now he is back at it full on conspiracy theory. Obviously his camp feel saying it is rigged will get the base out to vote.
I do not hear it on the news. Her anti-neoliberalism is not making it
to the news much. But Trumps anti-neoliberalism is. And he is a neoliberal. But he is acting like an anti-one in his vague statements. And he is running on that.
Hillary needs to amp it up against neoliberalism and austerity,
tax cuts, etc. And she needs to say it in a simple way. That trickle down has not worked for the last 30 years for the average worker. That trickle down is Trumps policy.
Here is Trump on the expression Drain the Swamp and how effective it is:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-explains-why-he-didnt-like-the-expression-drain-the-swamp-but-now-does/2016/10/26/4a2f257a-9be0-11e6-b552-b1f85e484086_video.html
Here is a link:
TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS: FOUR REASONS WHY IT JUST DOESN'T WORK
By Mehrun Etebari at Fair Economy
http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
SNIP...........
2. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth.
tax_inc_2.gif
Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes. Two strikes. How about hourly wages?
3. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth.
tax_wage_3.gif
Not surprisingly, we have mixed results yet again! Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.
Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn't until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher - indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory. As if that's not enough, now let's see about what President Bush claimed would be the biggest result of tax cuts - job creation.
4. Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation.
tax_emp_4.gif
Here, we see the change in the unemployment rate laid against the top tax rate from 1954 to 2002. Thus, negative values signify a decrease in unemployment -- in essence, job creation. Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.
.............SNIP
Republican claims they will start investigating Clinton right after the election
are to suppress the hopes of Democrats and make them apathetic. So too the claims that no supreme Court nominee will be accepted. People are beginning to get ziggy with Hillary as Trump has reveal himself to be just a bore who only plays one tune. People are remembering how likeable she was before the MSM made this a horse race by giving Trump so much free airtime. So the GOP is pulling out all the stops to keep people from imagining a great President Clinton implementing a progressive and great agenda focused on growing the middle class, to lower turnout and down-ballot voting for Democrats. They want to deny any visual of what a Hillary 'ship of state' will look like: powerful, steady and backed by engineers and other expertise as it plows forward. Instead they are painting a picture of one rubber dingy with one oar going around in circles.
All the people on Trump's team are space cowboys: people who are or are foreseeably
soon 'put out to pasture'.
How is Trump going to discern geopolitical risk better than the
generals when he could not discern, something as simple as, that Obama was born in the USA? He either has to say he was lying for all those years or explain it was really, really hard to read that birth certificate.
Apparently Trump was empathizing with the monster and not empathizing
with homeland security (which we know he never does - he is always in competition with the generals or the Obama military or anyone in authority).
That is taking non support of the president outside of US borders quite far. Until Obama, politics
used to stop at the border. This is Trump losing his bearings. Dyslexics do that when they look at things from all angles. And then they come to a big picture. Trump loses his bearings on something like this and then, doubles down. There is no synthesized big picture for him. There is only him.
Maybe he wants lots of Mexicans demonstrating against him in Mexico.
After all Trump at war was the way his base learnt to love him. Maybe he thinks people will get out of his visit what they want: Republicans wary of Trump will see him talking to the president of Mexico, Trump's rabid base will see him sticking his finger in Mexico's eye?
My god. The Clintons leverage their fame to do good in the world. They break no laws
but yet the GOP find a way to create a social panic about the Clinton Foundation. Creeps. Even CNN is panicking. Calm down. This is a double standard. Breath deep. Ask about the double standard. Remind republicans that after 9/11 Kenneth Starr came had in hand and apologized for his investigation into Whitewater. Obviously Republicans were begging democrats to not do what they did and appoint a special prosecutor on the 9/11 attacks. Now there is a story to ad some balance.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Feb 7, 2005, 03:14 AMNumber of posts: 118,622