Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Putting Bill in charge is not the equivalent of no plan. And Bill did an excellent job throughout his term.

You can read the details of her plans here: A Look at Hillary Clinton's Economic Policies
The Bottom Line
Clinton’s emphasis on strong, fair, and long-term growth is aimed at increasing the incomes of hard-working, middle-class Americans. At a time when the economy has been struggling and income inequality is on the rise, Clinton’s campaign could promise a brighter economic future....
Click to expand...


And even without specifics it's a better plan than what Trump is threatening to do... just declare bankruptcy... worked for him.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Putting Bill in charge is not the equivalent of no plan. And Bill did an excellent job throughout his term.
Click to expand...

Which of Bill's economic policies were you most impressed with? Riding the tech bubble of "irrational exuberance" until it burst? The economy was in recession when he left office.
 
Argumemnon said:
I've learned that what I think is common knowledge rarely is.



That's pretty much the Donald, yes.



How is that a problem? At least Bill has a record in the government.

And bear in mind, I'm no fan of Hillary.
Click to expand...
The modern feminist ideal, having her husband fix something that's broken!
 
Yeah, the whole, "I'll put Bill in charge of the economy," thing is silly. About the best that can be said about Bill's supposed first stewardship of the economy is that at least he didn't screw it up. Like it or not, there is little a president can do about the economy (except for negative things).

Here's 13 minutes of Hillary lying about her past positions and statements:

 
The Bottom Line
Clinton’s emphasis on strong, fair, and long-term growth is aimed at increasing the incomes of hard-working, middle-class Americans. At a time when the economy has been struggling and income inequality is on the rise, Clinton’s campaign could promise a brighter economic future....
Click to expand...
She could start by fairly redistributing some of the hundred of millions she has to start the income inequality train rolling. I didn't know the Obama economy is struggling...most posters here claim the opposite.
 
Bob001 said:
Actually, there are people who make a compelling case that the seeds of the economic collapse -- deregulation of banking, expansion of derivatives trading, reappointment of Greenspan, etc. -- were sown during the Clinton administration.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/bub..._legacy_she_doesnt_want_you_to_remember_this/
Click to expand...

Banking deregulation (specifically repealing portions of Glass-Steagall) was a Republican initiative. People appear to like to blame Bill Clinton for it but his role was only that he didn't veto it.

Given that America embraces the concepts of free markets and innovation I'm not sure why it would interfere in restricting investment in dot-coms. Stocks are risky, people invested in dot-coms and some made money and some didn't. In the end the hype around dot-coms faded and the market fell.

The Salon article also mentions removal of inter-state banking restrictions, which was apparently done mostly to remove restrictions that US banks had that foreign banks in the US did not have. The main author of that bill, Donald Riegle, has endorsed Sanders (at least according to Wiki).

The author of the Salon article makes it look like all of these problems were directly a part of Bill Clinton's economic policy. I'm not so sure it was.
 
Bob001 said:
Actually, there are people who make a compelling case that the seeds of the economic collapse -- deregulation of banking, expansion of derivatives trading, reappointment of Greenspan, etc. -- were sown during the Clinton administration.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/17/bub..._legacy_she_doesnt_want_you_to_remember_this/
Click to expand...

Seeds sewn or not, it was a Republican sponsored bill, and who can say if Clinton had been in power over the subsequent 8 years when the bubble burst that he wouldn't have had additional economic measures that corrected the problem before it happened?

The economy was good as well as the deficit spending during Clinton's 8 years.
 
16.5 said:
“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find.” ― Clinton Confidant James Carville.
Click to expand...


"James Carville, a hillbilly who looks like he was sired during the love scene from Deliverance." -- American author Lisa Grunwald circa 1996
 
sunmaster14 said:
don't you think that looking at % growth makes more sense than absolute growth?
Click to expand...

No, actually I don't, and the main reason is that the larger the economy the lower the overall percentage increase. It's harder to raise GDP 50% when the over all GDP is $13 Trillion than when is is $3 Trillion.

Percentages on an ever increasing figure will always bias to the earliest results, which is exactly what you show, simply because they had smaller figures to work with.

Consider a President in 2050 who raises the economy by 5 Trillion in inflation adjusted 2009 dollars. Would you consider this a good amount? well above anything ever see so far. Yet if we work on the idea of 2 Trillion per decade, then in 2050 the economy will be about $20 Trillion so a $5 Trillion increase would only be 25%, half of the 1960-1970 percentage increase.

Percentages just don't work well as comparisons when dealing with cumulative gains.
 
WildCat said:
Hillary has been criticizing Trump for not giving details about how he'd fix the economy. Hillary's plan? The greatest woman ever, the ideal feminist hero (for women over 60 anyway), is going to tell her husband to fix it.

:dl:
Click to expand...

Does Bill have to balance the little woman's chequebook too?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
who can say if Clinton had been in power over the subsequent 8 years when the bubble burst that he wouldn't have had additional economic measures that corrected the problem before it happened?
Click to expand...
No need to wonder. Without Bush's tax cuts and illegal wars we could easily have weathered any bumps in the economy.

And Bush's policies weren't just disastrous, for many people they were fatal - literally.
 

Attachments

  • 10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f2.jpg
    10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f2.jpg
    91.5 KB · Views: 11
Roger Ramjets said:
No need to wonder. Without Bush's tax cuts and illegal wars we could easily have weathered any bumps in the economy.

And Bush's policies weren't just disastrous, for many people they were fatal - literally.
Click to expand...

The Iraq war was illegal? Hey I am no fan of Hillary either, but saying that she voted for an illiegal war is bold.

But you make a good case.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Percentages just don't work well as comparisons when dealing with cumulative gains.
Click to expand...
The proper metric is GDP per person. The graph below clearly shows that GDP/capita has been growing exponentially since 1870.

The only problem with GDP/capita is that it doesn't tell you whose wealth is increasing.
Exploding wealth inequality in the United States
...wealth inequality has exploded in the United States over the past four decades. The share of wealth held by the top 0.1 percent of families is now almost as high as in the late 1920s, when “The Great Gatsby” defined an era that rested on the inherited fortunes of the robber barons of the Gilded Age.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • long-run-us-gdp-per-capita-growth-1870-2011-in-logarithms.jpg
    long-run-us-gdp-per-capita-growth-1870-2011-in-logarithms.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 9
16.5 said:
saying that she voted for an illiegal war is bold.
Click to expand...
It would be if I said it. But Hillary didn't vote for an illegal war. The resolution authorized Bush to use military force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States", and encouraged diplomatic efforts to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq... strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush alone made the decision to invade - not Hillary or the other 373 members of the Senate and Congress who let him decide (a mistake for sure - but who knew he would be such a turd?).
 
Foolmewunz said:
Well, then the ball's back in the right side of the court. You go find evidence of those shills. The paranoid folks over at Reddit haven't located any. l8Elvis provided you with 8000 accredited Tweets. No one making this "well, it just seems to me" accusation has proved a single one.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince you. You're trying to convince me. Specifically, you're trying to convince me to trust politicians as much as you do. You're trying to convince me to trust politicians so much that I should not even question whether the Hillary Clinton campaign might possibly be astroturfing on social media.

Please. Go ahead. Explain to me why you trust Hillary so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom