It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hillary Clinton: 'Trickle-Down Economics Has Failed'

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:06 AM
a reply to: IntastellaBurst

Oh dear it seems i have upset someone.

All because i didn't jump on the bandwagon, and just parrot democratic talking points about how 'business' is evil.

The funniest part there is that today. China, and Russia are more 'capitialist' than this country is anymore.

Especially after Clintons party has run this country in to the ground MORE SO than it already was during the past 6 years.

Lets see since American business have been run out of this country by the left.

China has overtaken the US in economic output.

I would say Clinton, and the left need to reevaluate their entire platform.

But hey thanks to devolving to the point of throwing out 'shill' because they don't blindly follow the Clintons of this country.

edit on 29-10-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:31 AM

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
So now even professional corporate politicians are using the failure of "trickle down economics" to muster votes.

D's and R's = corporate politics!

I agree with you and want to emphasize your ''trickle down economics' to [color=yellow] muster votes .

Our (USA) politics are only popularity poles, who can 'muster' the most votes, who can acquire the biggest 'war chest', etc.

Career politicans, of all stripes and with few exceptions, don't care about governing or improving the lives of those 'mustered' votes they just want to win the next election, which starts the day after the last. They carefully craft their public message to a given audience whether it be wealthy or poor, black or white, union or non. They have no responsibilty or contiuency, they have no leadership skills nor diplomatic skils and are quick to dismiss those public servants that do if not 'on their team'.

Why - one glaring reason is that most 'career politicians' are trained as lawyers. The schooling (actually training) a lawyer undergoes in the USA is a course of 'winning' at all costs. In fact, that is the underlying 'organizing principle' of US society - winning at any cost - the consequences, justice, truth are irrelevant as long as you win.

I heard an Australian fellow taling with Ian McMasters on KPFK last Friday I believe talking about mandatory voting in Australia. He said that the single best benefit of mandatory voting was that people watch their politicians to see if they keep to their promises. That politicians are much more likey to seriously attempt to fulfill their campaign claims because they know with absolute certainty that the people they let down will vote in the next election.

Not like in the US where disappointed people (a large perportion of those who voted for President Obama) will vote in the next election rather then 'sulk in political' isolation. Political parties in Australia are more likely to have platforms that members work towards on behalf of themselves and other party members.

Interesting thread. I think Ms Clinton has learned well from her husband the art of political 'triangulation' but is not above saying anything at all to get elected with no intention or even care whether or not she can govern effectively (and it requires all parties to participate with the intention of governing well) or productlvely.

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:42 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
So we've had two terms of Obamanomics, and that didn't work. The stimulus did jack except line the bank accounts of political bundlers in big government positions proving that government is inept to do what they claim the private sector can't/won't do.

So, how do you get jobs? Because the way I see it, either they both failed -or- one side is lying -or- there is a problem in the system (NOT congressional gridlock or obstructionism) that prevents it from going forward.

Personally, I think we need a reset to the tax system. We either need a flat consumption tax rate for all -or- a flat income tax rate for all. We do NOT need both.

I've a new idea for you, if you've the open mind to see/hear it, how about taxes based not on income but on NET WORTH. I know there are problems with 'off-shore' # but over all for both businesses and people it would be fairer.

Now as I write it, I don't think (for the initial roll-out any way) that would be too much of a problem because companies do want their ASSETS (liquid, long-term, and 'funky' to look high) for investors. Hmmm - requires more thought.

I've often thought - many economic systems are skewed badly by using INCOME as a basis.

Just for your consideration.

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:58 AM

originally posted by: Jainine
She's obviously getting started campaigning. Why did she reach back so far and bring that up? Obama's economics are also not doing so well but no mention of that. Instead of being critical of republicans from a long while back, couldn't she come up with something new that actually works?

Because understanding the origins of the current economic paradigim is important. Taxes are not the enemy of anyone; the wealthy (corporate and private) most of all get the benefit of taxes. That is a primary reason for 'progressive taxation' - to balance the higher corporate/weathly socialisms with those benefiting the poor. The weatlhy entities receive much more then they contribute, whereas it is opposite for the middle and lower classes.

Note below the time of our (USA) greatest prosperity:

And a long-form (if you have the attention spam) interview with Thom Hartmann (who has impecable research skills and integrity) with Amy Goodman of Democray Now:

edit on 29-10-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:09 AM
a reply to: AlaskanDad

This woman is a the definition of a liar. She answers to the same people/money Reagan did. The elite use these tactics because they work. Point the finger at the other side and stir up the base and maybe get new minds. That fact remains if you vote for either one of the two big parties you are in fact voting for the same person.

Thankfully many conservatives see this simple truth and that is why Romney was not elected. Romney would have followed the same exact script as Obama. We would have Romney care and the liberals would be tearing it apart as the Republicans defended it. Think I am crazy look back at what Obama said he would do before he was elected.........It is all a lie. The patriot act,big banking,stopping the wars............He lied to get elected and than followed the script.

posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 01:13 AM

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
So now even professional corporate politicians are using the failure of "trickle down economics" to muster votes.

no not "even now"

Ross Perot called it voodoo economics in 1992, that same year R Senator Hank Brown said in the house that Reagan had never supported it (see - R's were confused even then!)

outside the US "trickle down" has been described as "the rich pissing on the poor"

He was not the first: 1980

"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and 'economic madness.'"

Teriary source:

Video of Imperial Bush I (1:29 into the video) during the 1980 GOP debates:

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 05:01 AM
The reason trickle down doesn't work is that the 1% have proven over the last two decades that they will reinvest very little of their wealth in creating US jobs and businesses with out the government twisting their arms to do so. Trickle down might work, in theory, if corporations today felt any real responsibility toward the nation and it's people. The era of corporate responsibility and patriotism has vanished completely.

Today, the wealthy do very little per dollar they earn/possess to create jobs and contribute to middle class economic growth. They just vacuum up money that could be invested in job creation and a more educated population and sit on it, preventing it from going to work for the nation.

There is no contradiction between the premise that "trickle down doesn't work" and incentives for economic growth. However, I think an important part of the equation is absent in the conversation, which is for incentives to work, you need to take more from the 1% via higher taxes and elimination of loopholes, and then force them to "earn it back" via tax credits for corporate behaviors that benefit job growth and expansion of the middle class.

Capitalism works best when the government has just enough control/oversight to ensure that corporations work with a sense of responsibility toward the the nation and it's people, while not exercising unnecessary controls that stifle business' ability to help grow the economy while also building their own success. The problem today is that corporate America and the 1% are the equivalent of spoiled rotten five year olds who refuse to stop breast feeding, won't share their toys with anyone and expect there every whim to be met, with out any concern of any other person. They've proven they can't be trusted to have a free hand and need controls to enforce the corporate behaviors that ensure proper corporate responsibility and strategies for corporate growth that also create jobs and boost the over all economy.

Of course, the system is so broken and the manipulation of the public successful that it's hard to imagine things will change any time soon. That so many can so easily be convinced to mortgage away their own economic futures in support of politics and policies that just concentrate more and more wealth into the hands of the 1%, just goes to show how successful the manipulation has become.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in