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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Clinton's plan to stimulate the economy, spend more money! Ahahaha!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 09:34 AM
The clueless corrupt politicians are going to do it again! That's right folks, you heard it here first, step right up and get ya paper!

Hillary Clinton's Website

Hillary believes the defining economic challenge of our time is raising incomes for hardworking Americans.

This communist is going to artificially raise incomes rather than eliminate corporate subsidy, end immigration making our labor force more competitive and renegotiating our poorly constructed trade deals!

Hillary will invest in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to create jobs and strengthen our economy.

Crooked Hillary Clinton will spend billions of dollars and raise taxes on manufacturers to pay for it!

Create a New College Compact. Hillary’s New College Compact will invest $350 billion so that students do not have to borrow to pay tuition at a public college in their state.

You know what, because of declining purchasing power and rising cost of living most of the grant money and money from loans for college get spent on rent!

Boost public investment in infrastructure and scientific research. One of the best ways to drive jobs and improve our nation’s competitiveness is to invest in infrastructure and scientific research.

Spend more money.

Lift up participation in the workforce—especially for women. For too long, issues like equal pay, paid leave, and affordable child care have been put off to the side as "women's issues."

I understand equal pay but has this women stepped into an office in the modern world? It's mostly dominated by women exactly like colleges are mostly dominated by women.

Raising the minimum wage and strengthening overtime rules. Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage.

Yup, artificially raise wages eliminating any chance anyone ever had for entry level positions in a new field and stifling social mobility great idea!

Nowhere will the shift from short-term to long-term thinking be more important than on Wall Street.

Oh yeah she's going to regulate her biggest donors, you know the people who pays her tens of millions of dollar to speak at their events.

Whatever Hillary. You're a big copy cat that's about it. Basically hijacking Bernie's platform and putting it into different words. Trump is right, crooked Hillary.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 09:39 AM
a reply to: onequestion
Read this right now about $Hillary:

Hillary deletes more than emails as the latest edition of her memoir removes all her cheerleading for controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal

Ok, it´s mailonline, but...

The people in the US are doomed, have to choose between evil and evil.

I bet evil will win at the end...

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 09:47 AM
I agree with most of what you said except science funding. If we weren't so screwed up we'd be able to afford to fund science. That's probably the only area that actually does require investment from the government.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: onequestion

All I see is trillions of more dollars in debt. We cant tax our way out of this debt either. We are f#cked.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 10:11 AM
a reply to: onequestion

Yep. This is the new way. Here in Canada we now have our new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doing exactly the same thing.

He ran on an election promise to spend $10 billion into the red on his first year, and then immediately after election showed he lied, and is in fact tripling down and spending $30 billion we don't have in his first year alone.

This deficit spending mentality is irresponsible and shameful. We will be lucky if we don't end up line Greece with this man at the helm.

What ever happened to spending within your means so we don't ruin our children's futures with massive debt repayment responsibilities?

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 10:20 AM
a reply to: nightbringr

If they would stop all these government subsidies for corporations and let small business and manufacturers get some leverage by cutting their taxes and leveraging tariffs on important we wouldn't need all this spending.

I do believe in updating our infrastructure though.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 10:52 AM
a reply to: onequestion

I believe in it as well, but let's be realistic about it.

Cut government spending and do it right without taking on massive debt.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:04 AM
All those things you quoted in the OP sounds like very good ideas (and improvements), to me.

Raising income & minimum wage; job growth; overtime improvements; investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific research; equal pay, etc...

Only in BizzaroLand are those things badEVIL. And ONLY because a democrat proposes it.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:08 AM
a reply to: Liquesence

Artificially raising wages is not good for the economy.

Obviously they sound good but she's wall street's candidates she will blame gridlock in congress for these things.

Her husband signed nafta she was pro ttp until this election cycle.

Everything she has said and done is totally the opposite of what that website says.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:25 AM
a reply to: onequestion

No, artificially raising wages is not good, but the proposals are more advantageous as a whole than not. We NEED most of those things done. Those things are more important than banning muslims and building walls.

she will blame gridlock in congress for these things.

And that's EXACTLY what it will likely be.

The past eight years have proved that.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:30 AM

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: onequestion

I believe in it as well, but let's be realistic about it.

Cut government spending and do it right without taking on massive debt.

Will interest rates on the loans (infrastructure spending) ever be this low again?
Although I totally agree that wasteful spending needs to go, at least infrastructure spending puts trades people to work, and gives them money to spend, and gives them money to not default on their loans.
And this entire continent needs upgrading- damns, bridges, water treatment, flood mitigation, nuclear plants in the US, etc....

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:36 AM
a reply to: onequestion

It actually isn't good for the economy, but I think you know what he was trying to say. Creating a standard of living that represents one's level of education, experience, and work ethic.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: onequestion

I recall a app that was floating around FB saying no one can balance the budget of the US with this thing it was a 50 projection... be weird if thats actually how the budget was decided huh or at least tried to be accept for any gotta pass law feet dragging to make whatever worked. I knocked about 1/3rd off that highest bar called military spending added the difference between education and jobs knocked some off of another common port barrel like the military cant recall what that was and slapped it into social programs and small business.

It did the little calculation load and said it was good for 70 to 80 years... instead of the target 50 yr. click bait likely. But perhaps such apps and metrics are what they are using to push certian agendas not the toy ones but like professional sort of ones made for just that... of course selling the outcomes can likely be difficult without bipartisanship someting it appears Hillary already has on her side with Donald polarizing that party so much or at least playing that side as fools or it was planned that way for hey lets make a reality show drama to get more people interested in politics whether its an entire roose or not as Trump said he could run republican and play the pander and win nomination and well it happened... and of course heres Clinton the Bipartsain hero only those against the establishment can complain about.

Hey maybe the season finale is that Bernie slides into home plate to keep everyone guessing like a very good sports game/soap opera to kick a field goal from the 50 yrd line with 10 seconds left and everyone feels like they won?

Life though... comedy and tradegdy all rolled into one. Since so many have been so emotional and watching this drama for what seems like 100 years now, perhaps some cange will actually start taking place.

My Ex father in law was head of the RNC in his division and he said the current sthtf in a presidency is all the last presidents doing... cause it takes awhile for all that cause to have an effect. So everytime Obama said Bushs' fault he wasnt lying... now whomever gets in there next? We'll actually see how Biden er I mean Obama did I mean Hillary since she enjoyed taking the credit during the road trip around America party is as party does though so give them all credit ffs.


posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:07 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Mmm, I wouldn't worry too much about what Clinton can/might want to do. The Great Recession bottomed in 2008. The economy began to somewhat hesitantly start to recover in 2009. Since 2009 the stock markets began to climb in what's referred to as a "secular bull market". Those phases typically last for 8 ~ 10 years followed by a market plunge into a new recessionary "bear" cycle.

Its been pretty generally accepted that the next recession will commence sometime between 2017~2019. Again, its expected to be the explosion or implosion of a massive government credit bubble. Right now, I'm noting a rise in the price of gold propelled apparently, assuming CNBC can be believed, by wealthy 1%ers buying gold and/or gold futures. If that's correct, they're hedging against a collapse in value of the US dollar. However, if we see collapse of government issued credit, we might well see an "implosion", i.e. a Deflationary cycle into a "Depression".


Either way, Hilary won't have much time to do much and nothing she does will compare to this recession/Depression that's on the horizon.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:13 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Government spending is only a problem depending upon where the money comes from. Otherwise it's a good thing.

If you borrow the money that you're spending that's bad.

If you tax more for the money that can be bad too depending upon what the taxes are currently and who's taxed.

But if you just shift the money from one place to another that you're already getting it can be a good thing.

The question is which one of these is she proposing to do??? Borrow, Tax More or Reallocate what's already there???

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:36 PM
a reply to: snowspirit

I don't disagree with any one point there.

I do however disagree with any deficit spending in times of economic growth. The only exceptions would be due to unforeseeable, unavoidable spending due to things like natural disasters.

Government spending needs to be better controlled, not overlooked when they ask for more of our money. There are so many non-essential services and projects that would be looked after by the public sector much more effectively that the government. There is no excuse for budgets to rise quicker than the rate of interest.

Less spending, not more!
edit on 11-6-2016 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:41 PM
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Well if Trump and Hillary are the only choice then this may be the only solution:

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:48 PM
a reply to: onequestion
What constitutes artificial raising wages? When raise time comes around in skilled trades, we are told we are being paid mid range from a survey of surrounding (but secret) industries that have a similar job demands. I don't think this is an isolated occurrence.

Odd how industries band together to (collude) set wages, but when employees want to band together (unionize) some see this as bad.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:49 PM
a reply to: seasonal

Government raising minimum wage is artificial wage increase that doesn't reflect market trends.

posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: onequestion

Both Clinton and Trump will spend MORE money. The difference is that Trump will cut-off international welfare to countries that are not American-friendly, and spend the dollars FAR FAR more effectively than Hillary would.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in