Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

r12OhGGhOSU

Say wot?

Well trickle-down economics are actually not effective, and while corporations play an important part in creating jobs, they are not the sole cog to be considered when looking at national economies and employment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well trickle-down economics are actually not effective, and while corporations play an important part in creating jobs, they are not the sole cog to be considered when looking at national economies and employment.


Let me be clear. Who creates jobs if corporations and buisness do not?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Let me be clear. Who creates jobs if corporations and buisness do not?
People.

What Clinton no doubt meant was that LARGE corporations are not the best drivers of local economic growth and job creation. It's very simple when you consider it this way: big corporations can continue growing without needing to hire Americans by expanding into foreign markets. Smaller businesses are more likely constrained to domestic markets and so will do their hiring locally and put their money into their local economies.

Demand, aka the People, create jobs.

edit- God damn it, OV.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People.

What Clinton no doubt meant was that LARGE corporations are not the best drivers of local economic growth and job creation. It's very simple when you consider it this way: big corporations can continue growing without needing to hire Americans by expanding into foreign markets. Smaller businesses are more likely constrained to domestic markets and so will do their hiring locally and put their money into their local economies.

I find it odd she speaks against major corporations while they accept $1 billion in corporation and business money

http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-bill-and-hillary-clinton-money-machine-taps-corporate-cash-1404268205

Why? Would you prefer that she took the money as a bribe and said nothing critical of corporations because they paid her off?

Excellent point by the Blaxican.

Even if Hillary is not the person most ethically qualified to talk about money and privilege, that doesn't mean that what she's saying isn't correct. It's like Russia criticizing American foreign policy. They're often correct about the abuses they point out, even though to any reasonable person it's clear that Russia is ten times crueler and more ruthless when it comes to stuff they can get away with.

this is some chicken and egg shit tbh

the whole thing is a cycle. saying the job creators are rich investors is only looking at one side of the coin, as is saying the consumer populace are job creators. the two are interdependent.

Originally posted by red g jacks
this is some chicken and egg shit tbh

the whole thing is a cycle. saying the job creators are rich investors is only looking at one side of the coin, as is saying the consumer populace are job creators. the two are interdependent.

Its absolutely absurd that she said it in the first place.

Yes?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Why? Would you prefer that she took the money as a bribe and said nothing critical of corporations because they paid her off?

She said something stupid.


Do you bite the hand that feeds you?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its absolutely absurd that she said it in the first place.

Yes? no, she's playing the game. the democrat's job is to suck up to the working class. make them feel important. if she was a republican she'd be giving rich investors the credit with the same line of rhetoric and the exact same tone. what's absurd is that there's still suckers that really buy this shit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no, she's playing the game. the democrat's job is to suck up to the working class. make them feel important. if she was a republican she'd be giving rich investors the credit with the same line of rhetoric and the exact same tone. what's absurd is that there's still suckers that really buy this shit.

Agreed!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
She said something stupid.


Do you bite the hand that feeds you? She's not wrong. Trickle-down economics is idiotic and doesn't work.

The majority of the time that we've been in this "recession" with a tanking job market, corporations have been making record-breaking profits. So if these companies are what's responsible for injecting life into America's job market, why was our economy on life-support for 5 years while they were making hand over fist?

TI is clearly a capitalist Republican.
He hates democracy.

No use arguing with someone this narrowminded.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
She's not wrong. Trickle-down economics is idiotic and doesn't work.

The majority of the time that we've been in this "recession" with a tanking job market, corporations have been making record-breaking profits. So if these companies are what's responsible for injecting life into America's job market, why was our economy on life-support for 5 years while they were making hand over fist?

Yes, this is called the Matthew Effect. No doubt that this is called that because the Dave Matthews band sucks so horribly (this is a joke...please don't take that comment seriously).

Give his book a go:

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14948-8/the-matthew-effect


Anyway, I'm hoping to capitalize (pun intended) on this rich-getting-richer scheme. We aren't going to be young forever so you might want to start investing or exploring entrepreneurship.

Her words were poorly chosen, but she did not say anything outright idiotic. The amorphous idea of Businesses is, like I said, a vital part of the job equilibrium, however they don't "create" jobs in a vacuum. I agree with OV, what she was likely trying to attack are large corporations, that take US money in subsidies, or otherwise profit from US infrastructures in the past and present, and in turn ship off domestic jobs, or don't invest much at all back into the US economy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Her words were poorly chosen, but she did not say anything outright idiotic. The amorphous idea of Businesses is, like I said, a vital part of the job equilibrium, however they don't "create" jobs in a vacuum. I agree with OV, what she was likely trying to attack are large corporations, that take US money in subsidies, or otherwise profit from US infrastructures in the past and present, and in turn ship off domestic jobs, or don't invest much at all back into the US economy.

Meh, that's about as good as we can put it.

From an economist's perspective, she's saying extremely ignorant and factually incorrect things about dem dare jorb creations. From a political strategy perspective, she's just over-simplifying to appeal to an imaginary idea of what voters want to hear.


I say don't talk down to the voters. She shouldn't oversimplify like that. She should just state reality in academic economic terms.

Here, I can state it very simply and do a better job of getting it right:

"Shit is complicated, yo. Can't just say Big Corporations, Tax Policy, Foreign Policy, Citizens, Foreign Countries, and/or Small Businesses create jobs: it is all of the above and then some. Dammit, everyone should know this shit. Why are we even talking about it? Is this real life?"


Bam...I just found the grand unified theory.

I don't think you'll find any politician say anything like that on the campaign trail simply because there's no contention in it, and if you deliver a message without contention it sounds like you're being wishy-washy. Also people have their biases when it comes to economic policy, biases they want to hear confirmed by politicians.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
TI is clearly a capitalist Republican.
He hates democracy.

No use arguing with someone this narrowminded.

Wow and here I thought we were breakfast club pals

This is the tamest "blunder" I've ever seen made fun of. Anyone with any kind of political savvy knows her economic positions, and knows what she meant by that comment.

You can disagree with her position - that's fine - but to stoop to mockery over something that's easily discernible with even the smallest amount of context is...curious.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Wow and here I thought we were breakfast club pals
We still are.


Now that you mention it, I am obliged to post a pic of what I had today.

Damn you psychofist

Originally posted by Digi
This is the tamest "blunder" I've ever seen made fun of. Anyone with any kind of political savvy knows her economic positions, and knows what she meant by that comment.

You can disagree with her position - that's fine - but to stoop to mockery over something that's easily discernible with even the smallest amount of context is...curious.

Quiet you!

If this is Hilary doing bad she's still by far the most able politician in the US scene.

Originally posted by Bentley
If this is Hilary doing bad she's still by far the most able politician in the US scene.

Shaddup Frechy before I fry you

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Shaddup Frechy before I fry you

That would make you craftier than the whole US political system!

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Shaddup Frechy before I fry you
More ignorant misinformation about the origins of french fries. crackers

Originally posted by Bentley
That would make you craftier than the whole US political system!

:P

Originally posted by Digi
This is the tamest "blunder" I've ever seen made fun of. Anyone with any kind of political savvy knows her economic positions, and knows what she meant by that comment.

You can disagree with her position - that's fine - but to stoop to mockery over something that's easily discernible with even the smallest amount of context is...curious.

"but to stoop to mockery over something that's easily discernible with even the smallest amount of context is..." Nornal

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
r12OhGGhOSU

Say wot?

Behold our next President.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Trickle-down economics is idiotic and doesn't work.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0703/360_reagan_tear0316.jpg

For my own part, I'm philosophically libertarian on economic policy, but there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that more socialist tendencies in economic policy eventually lead to a stronger economy, better education, and more overall happiness. It's a hard pill to swallow when I value personal freedom (and by that I mean "economic freedom", which leads to personal freedom) higher than some of the ideals and goals of more socialist policies. So it's been a weird dichotomy of information and opinion for me.

As it pertains to the Hillary snippet, trickle-down isn't libertarian, which works to avoid centralized power and monopolies, whether governmental or corporate. So I have no problem jumping on board with these statements, even if her overarching economic policies make me squirm occasionally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"but to stoop to mockery over something that's easily discernible with even the smallest amount of context is..." Nornal

Ha, no joke. It's a shame, but you have a point.

Originally posted by Robtard
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0703/360_reagan_tear0316.jpg

Keeeey RIST, that image is he most appropriate and hilarious response. I lost my shit at work to the chagrin of my coworkers.


Originally posted by Digi
For my own part, I'm philosophically libertarian on economic policy, but there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that more socialist tendencies in economic policy eventually lead to a stronger economy, better education, and more overall happiness. It's a hard pill to swallow when I value personal freedom (and by that I mean "economic freedom", which leads to personal freedom) higher than some of the ideals and goals of more socialist policies. So it's been a weird dichotomy of information and opinion for me.

Yes, that perfectly describes my position and perspective, as well...but you did it much more eloquently.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, that perfectly describes my position and perspective, as well...but you did it much more eloquently.

Thanks. It's all the more reason I vote almost exclusively on social, educational, foreign policy, and environmental issues anymore, though. I'm torn on economics for reasons stated, and I also believe governments don't have NEARLY the influence over economic prosperity as many think they do. And when they do, those at the top often lack the leverage to create lasting change. So while it doesn't quite make me a one-issue voter, for example, I'm far more likely to vote for a gay marriage advocate than a fiscal libertarian, all other issues being equal. The desired outcome is much more likely to happen, imo.

The same is true of educational issues, to a lesser extent. I can see the change in gay rights. It's happening in front of our eyes. But, regardless of administration, has education noticeably improved under any new law or practice? I'm much more likely to vote when I think a tangible, positive outcome is within the realm of possibility. With most things governmental, the list of logistical and political BS makes more complex forms of progress less likely.

Originally posted by Robtard
Behold our next President.

Originally posted by Digi
For my own part, I'm philosophically libertarian on economic policy, but there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that more socialist tendencies in economic policy eventually lead to a stronger economy, better education, and more overall happiness. It's a hard pill to swallow when I value personal freedom (and by that I mean "economic freedom", which leads to personal freedom) higher than some of the ideals and goals of more socialist policies. So it's been a weird dichotomy of information and opinion for me.

As it pertains to the Hillary snippet, trickle-down isn't libertarian, which works to avoid centralized power and monopolies, whether governmental or corporate. So I have no problem jumping on board with these statements, even if her overarching economic policies make me squirm occasionally.



Ha, no joke. It's a shame, but you have a point.
It's very difficult striking a balance between having an open economy that makes it easy and attractive for people to start up new enterprises and having the kind of safety net and regulations that make for an ethically upright society.

I think Germany is a pretty good model of how you can have a robust economy and a welfare state. You just have to work as hard as Germans work.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's very difficult striking a balance between having an open economy that makes it easy and attractive for people to start up new enterprises and having the kind of safety net and regulations that make for an ethically upright society.

I think Germany is a pretty good model of how you can have a robust economy and a welfare state. You just have to work as hard as Germans work.

I'm actually entirely unfamiliar with Germany's economy. But I'll be sure to look into it at some point.

I just hate that what I want for myself (near-total economic freedom with small government and very little welfare) isn't what empirical research tells us is the best model for society as a whole.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm actually entirely unfamiliar with Germany's economy. But I'll be sure to look into it at some point.

I just hate that what I want for myself (near-total economic freedom with small government and very little welfare) isn't what empirical research tells us is the best model for society as a whole.

Maybe you should be a politician, Digi for president!

I'll vote for you over Hilary.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial


I don't think she's potentially a lousy president in the making. She'll have everything going against her as people in power will want to make sure the first female president flops so badly there won't be another for the next 10 elections.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think she's potentially a lousy president in the making. She'll have everything going against her as people in power will want to make sure the first female president flops so badly there won't be another for the next 10 elections.

So you will not be voting for her?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So you will not be voting for her?

It's not clear if she's even running. But I'd have to see who makes the cut to run against her first, if that should happen.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not clear if she's even running. But I'd have to see who makes the cut to run against her first, if that should happen.

Ok cool

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think she's potentially a lousy president in the making.

I consider Obama lousy. So if she does just as poorly or worse than Obama, she'd be a bad president.


My older sister, who is a staunch conservative republican, thinks she should have been the 2012 elected president. She thought she would have done far better than Obama and Romney.

Seems like even the religious GOP voters are getting real tired of the GOP's shit.

I'll vote for Elizabeth Warren....

No, you'll not vote in the US elections at all.

#burned

You don't know what I've been up to lately.

Yes I do.

I don't know if there's a single good candidate in the field right now.

I just said!!!!

The capitalist ownership structure can only be regarded as a preparatory phase for the dictatorship of the proletariat where the pioneer opportunists take control of the means of production.

Originally posted by Astner
The capitalist ownership structure can only be regarded as a preparatory phase for the dictatorship of the proletariat where the pioneer opportunists take control of the means of production. Sounds great to me.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Maybe you should be a politician, Digi for president!

I'll vote for you over Hilary.

I'm quite sure you wouldn't. Beyond that, I'm unelectable as an atheist. I'd need to "find religion" before considering a run at any office with influence. Since I'm not technically excommunicated as a Catholic, and have some old friends that could be "references" of me coming back to the fold, it wouldn't be impossible. But it would smack of political posturing and likely sink me anyway.

I'd be an excellent speech writer, though.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm quite sure you wouldn't. Beyond that, I'm unelectable as an atheist. I'd need to "find religion" before considering a run at any office with influence. Since I'm not technically excommunicated as a Catholic, and have some old friends that could be "references" of me coming back to the fold, it wouldn't be impossible. But it would smack of political posturing and likely sink me anyway.

I'd be an excellent speech writer, though.

You're too smart and informed to be a politician.



Which isn't a high flattery if you think about it

Originally posted by Bentley
You're too smart and informed to be a politician.

Which isn't a high flattery if you think about it

Heh. Thanks. But nah, I'm convinced politicians have to be informed and intelligent on all sorts of things. It's just that sometimes they're allowed to remain ignorant because they won't lose points with their base. But a lot of it is boiling it down to lowest common denominators for media and the public. The actual intelligence required to be a successful politician is staggering.

I actually think I'd be a great politician, though. As a writer (and more generally, someone in communications), crafting messages to a specific audience and with specific goals in mind is at the forefront of everything I do. And that's a lot of what politics is. I tend to shy away from politics in my life, but it's because I don't have a meaningful platform from which to influence anything. If I did, I'd probably love it.

But yeah, speech writing. I lack the ego to stand in front of people and tell them what to think, but pushing others' agendas from behind a keyboard is literally what I've done for a living for much of my professional life, so it would be an easy transition. If anyone's seen The West Wing, I look at most of their roles and think "F*CK! I wouldn't want that, and/or couldn't do it." But I look at the Sam Seaborn role and think "Yeah, I could do that."

I was getting my car serviced the other day, and this clip was being dissected on Fox News while I waited in the lobby. So I rescind my earlier comments that it's easily understood in the context of her larger political views. Apparently people that do this for a living are just as guilty of this overreaction.

Originally posted by Astner
The capitalist ownership structure can only be regarded as a preparatory phase for the dictatorship of the proletariat where the pioneer opportunists take control of the means of production.

Oh yeah.

Funny thing is corporations and business are owned and run by people. Unless there is mice in the background running them.

For people to say its people that create jobs, then yes its people

Man 1 wants to start a business, so he goes and starts a business and files for a sole proprietorship. And then hires 5 people to help run the business. Now did he create jobs, yes. How? Through a business.

Man 2 in same situation wants to start a business, so he goes and files for a s-corp. Then he hires 200 people for work for him and help run the corporation. Now did he create jobs, yes. How? Through the corporation.

What Hilary said is typical spin for the misinformed and uneducated votes, like all the people at her pep rallies. Most people like the people running those business or corporations or the people working for them have jobs and are happy, they are not wasting their time with going to these retarded campaign events to listen to spin, when you can just turn it on in the news.

Did he create the jobs or did the bank that gave him a small business loan create the jobs? Did he create the jobs or did the customers that brought the demand for his goods and services create the jobs? Did he create the jobs or did the government that build the roads that he used to ship his goods, that educated the people that he could hire, create the jobs?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Did he create the jobs or did the bank that gave him a small business loan create the jobs? Did he create the job or did the customers that brought the demand for his goods and services create the jobs? Did he create the jobs or did the government that build the roads that he used to ship his goods, that educated the people that he could hire, create the jobs?

Shut up spinner.

Go worship the government more.

Originally posted by Digi
Heh. Thanks. But nah, I'm convinced politicians have to be informed and intelligent on all sorts of things.

The politicians are front men and are usually idiots, the aids and advisors are the real power.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The politicians are front men and are usually idiots, the aids and advisors are the real power.

And you know this because of your extensive firsthand experience in politics? Or something else?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Shut up spinner.

Go worship the government more.

I'm a libertarian...no gods and kings....no governments and corporate overlords...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm a libertarian...no gods and kings....no governments and corporate overlords...


That's more like Libertarian anarchism...not libertarianism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's more like Libertarian anarchism...not libertarianism.

Bardock is confused.

Nah

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Bardock is confused.

I agree. He was eyeballing my privates, earlier.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah

Very, look at your response to my post, its not libertarian at all.

Its complete left winged liberal bullshit.

Perhaps everything seems left winged liberal bullshit to you cause you are so far right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps everything seems left winged liberal bullshit to you cause you are so far right?

No I'm a middle of the road democrat.

Not in convictions though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not in convictions though.

Proof?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People.

What Clinton no doubt meant was that LARGE corporations are not the best drivers of local economic growth and job creation. It's very simple when you consider it this way: big corporations can continue growing without needing to hire Americans by expanding into foreign markets. Smaller businesses are more likely constrained to domestic markets and so will do their hiring locally and put their money into their local economies.

but it's those people that encourage foreign markets to take precedence in the same corporations that hire and support markets that kill local franchise and support outsourcing.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No I'm a middle of the road democrat.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not in convictions though.


Well, generally, I take people at their word. He is highly critical of both the GOP and dems.

Like I've pointed out on KMC, it seems like I'm a staunch GOP supporter because of how critical I am of American "liberals." That's because they are hypocrites (all of them, really...not just the "American Liberals", liars, and not liberals, at all.


There are some true American Liberals out there, though. Some really truly liberal people (social and fiscal policies). American Democrats? No, they are not "liberals." They are very staunch conservatives...for the most part.

I saw your thread hedging by saying you hate Fox News, and only sometimes watch it now, instead of much more often as you used to....

Like I said, your contribution on KMC paints a different picture. Maybe you do have some views in line with the Democrats, but when it comes to being outspoken, when it comes to arguing your views, you fall in line with the Republican party every single time on here...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I saw your thread hedging by saying you hate Fox News, and only sometimes watch it now, instead of much more often as you used to....

Like I said, your contribution on KMC paints a different picture. Maybe you do have some views in line with the Democrats, but when it comes to being outspoken, when it comes to arguing your views, you fall in line with the Republican party every single time on here...

Ive still proven you to be a massive liar. And a complete ignoramus when it comes to real world. Stay inside bro. The world is safer on your computer.

Mm hmm.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Mm hmm.

I accept your concession, dummy.

oh man looks like you just got served, bardock. you should have known better than to mess with time immerorial.

Originally posted by red g jacks
oh man looks like you just got served, bardock. you should have known better than to mess with time immerorial.

Are you still butthurt over our religious debate about muslim extremists?

Seems so.

We have a thread for sore ass's and butthurt.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f102/t489610.html

You are welcome.

shit man why would i catch feelings over you defeating me since you defeat everybody you butt heads with? we all know you're the champion.

Originally posted by red g jacks
shit man why would i catch feelings over you defeating me since you defeat everybody you butt heads with? we all know you're the champion.

Lol, no I'm wrong from Time to Time

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Lol, no I'm wrong from Time to Time classic.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Lol, no I'm wrong from Time to Time

Is this one of those times?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is this one of those times?

No sir, I took Bardock's head off as shown.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No sir, I took Bardock's head off as shown.

Stop playing with Bardock's head!

Originally posted by red g jacks
oh man looks like you just got served, bardock. you should have known better than to mess with time immerorial.

I should learn my lesson...but do I ever...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I should learn my lesson...but do I ever...

No its like playing wack-a-mole with you, I have to keep hamming.

At least you keep winning. Number 1, number 1, woooo

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
No its like playing wack-a-mole with you, I have to keep hamming.

Hamming?

Originally posted by Bardock42
At least you keep winning. Number 1, number 1, woooo

pipTwjwrQYQ

Originally posted by Robtard
Hamming? NPK1VHR8xrI