• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Hillary Clinton - Businesses don't create jobs.

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
I guess it's the government that does it then?

Hillary Clinton:

Simply stunning.

Honestly. Is half of America so deluded that they would vote for her? She obviously intended to say exactly what she had to say. Her viewpoint is anti-American and, considering that it denies verified fact, it's also idiotic.

It's ridiculous that our media allows people to make statements like this without eviscerating them.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Every time I read stuff like this I facepalm...literally. The level of ignorance in this statement, and in those of similar beliefs, is stunning.

First off when we talk about "trickle down economics" we are referencing the Reagan years. From a factual standpoint, more wealth was created between 1985 and 2005 than all other time periods in our nations history. We saw the dotcom boom emerge, mostly from lowering capital gains taxes and encouraging investment. We saw our standard of living grow exponentially.

Secondly, no economic theory or plan is done in a vacuum. You can't look at results and say it worked or didn't work all by itself. For example, many like to look at the tax rates during the Eisenhower administration and point to the economic boom we were going through and trying to establish a causal connection, while ignoring, either conveniently or ignorantly, Europe and Japan having to rebuild after WWII and the US being almost the only seller on the global market at the time.

Thirdly, we don't just wave a magic wand and say "we are now employing trickle down economics". Ever since the FDR administration we have been employing, in different degrees, Keynesian economics. We have, in varying degrees, been relying on increasing government spending and "demand-side economics" and to take one administration during these last 85 years or so and say "See, it doesn't work" is incredibly ignorant and stupid.

Fourthly, if you look at history, not just US history but world history, you would see just how dumb this statement is. History is replete with nations and empires run by monarchy with people living as subjects in feudal systems. Very little was advanced for hundreds of years. When the US was created and the US Constitution was written, a country relying on individual achievement, we saw in a very short period of time, relatively speaking, a huge growth in our standard of living, mostly due to investment....ie companies created to make and build, thus creating jobs. Hell, we went from two brothers in Kitty Hawk trying to create a flying machine to landing on the moon in 62 years. In a relatively short period of time, we went from creating what was essentially a go cart to completely doing away with the horse and buggy, and millions of jobs created to make those cars.

The main problem here is income inequality. There are literally HUNDREDS of reasons for this and to point to ONE practice and blame it all on it and come to the conclusion businesses don't create jobs is the height of stupidity. It's mind boggling this mental midget has even one supporter. I guess it's a result of ignorant people who just don't want to inform themselves and instead vote on emotions and sound bites.
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
It makes me a bit afraid about the future of America. Partially because about half of voters would be willing to vote for someone like this. Mostly I'm worried that she could actually become president. America has already had to endure 6 years of a terrible administration that believes as Hillary does, it will be 8 by the time Obama is done. I don't know how much more we can take. 12 years? 16 years? Please, no.

It's amazing to me that anybody (even Clinton) could hold a viewpoint such as this.
 
Last edited:

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
I've heard worse come out of Washington. Watching some of the candidates in the last US election speak made me wonder if I was watching a fund-raising infomercial for people with developmental disabilities. (Not that there's anything wrong with being "slow" but it should not be considered a prerequisite for entering US politics).

The person to win the election was the one who didn't attempt to answer questions, but rather gave irrelevant responses and repeated those responses as many times as necessary to make the person asking the question give up and move on. I suppose by comparison this would seem ingenious to many. As far as Hilary is concerned, she's going to need take a number and stand in line for the title of America's dumbest politician.


- Chameleon
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I guess these remarks makes Hillary a typical rhetoric spewing politician. That seems to be what comes out of most of their mouths. This president and the last one have been so crappy I'm afraid to wish for a good one. Anymore it seems the only choices you have is Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

@ Chameleon, I noticed also how during the last election how no one really answered a question. They would talk all around it with their rehearsed response but never really gave a answer. For once when they have a debate don't let them see the approved questions beforehand. Let them give an idiotic answer if that is the best they can do.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Actually in this case Hillary DID answer the question. She didn't dodge, she didn't give some political answer that didn't address the question, she DID make an affirmative statement, and a VERY stupid statement it was.
------
Call me crazy, but I think to run for POTUS one should have at the very least a basic understanding of economics and history, especially as how they are tied together. Hillary has shown her ignorance of both arenas.
 
Last edited:
Top