The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Dumb and Dumber

By on 6.29.10 @ 6:07AM

Hillarynomics gives Obamanomics a run for its worthless money.

With job creation in the U.S. basically at a standstill aside from some government hiring of temporary Census workers, even after a trillion-plus in stimulus spending, Hillary Clinton’s answer for more growth and more jobs is to remove even more money from the people who earned it and hand it over to the federal government.

In a recent address at the Brookings Institution, Mrs. Clinton succinctly delivered her recipe for reducing unemployment: “The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [the U.S. is] — whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever the taxation forms are.”

That’s consistent with the economic thinking that candidate Obama revealed during an unscripted moment in the presidential campaign: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.”

Hillary went on to cite Brazil as a model to imitate. “Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere, and guess what —- they’re growing like crazy,” she said. “And the rich are getting richer, but they’re pulling people out of poverty.”

In fact, Brazil doesn’t have the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba wins that race to fully bloated statism and excessive confiscation of income and wealth. And guess what —- they’re not growing like crazy and there’s still a shortage of fish even though the country is surrounded by water.

Fishing isn’t easy, explains Nick Miroff, a correspondent who covers Cuba for GlobalPost.com, when “Cuba’s communist government is so paranoid about illegal departures to the United States that it strictly controls who can own or use boats.”

Imagine a nice day on the water. You’re nothing, a peon, and the government is everything. You’re on a dinky raft held together by some inner tube strips from a ‘59 Chevy, trying to hook a fish for dinner when some gun-toting government enforcers pull up in a speed boat. “Hey, nutso,” they holler (that’s “estar mal de la azotea” in Spanish, i.e., “to be off one’s nut”), “you a mental case, crazy enough to try to escape to the U.S. hell from the workers’ paradise?”

Then the water cops confiscate your fishing rod and you feel lucky that you weren’t dropped in a dungeon for 10 years for excessive individualism and trying to steal a sea trout from the people.

Hillary also got it wrong about Brazil growing fast by way of excessively squeezing the rich and by having the highest tax-to-GDP rate. The top marginal tax rate on income in Brazil is 27.5 percent, a substantially lower rate than the 35 percent (and soon to be 39.6 percent) top rate in the United States.

Similarly, the top corporate tax rate in Brazil is 34 percent, lower than the combined federal and state corporate tax of 39.1 percent in the United States, the second-highest rate in the industrialized world (only Japan’s 39.5 percent combined rate is higher than the U.S. rate, but 24 states in the U.S. have a combined corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan). 

In other words, if Hillary Clinton is saying that the U.S. should copy Brazil’s tax structure in order to get the economy moving and stimulate job creation, that would mean a cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate and a one-third cut in the top U.S. income tax rate, the opposite of her call for higher taxes on the rich.

More broadly, Mrs. Clinton is ignoring the volumes of evidence that show a negative correlation between tax hikes and economic growth.

 

About the Author

Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) |

Kenny| 6.29.10 @ 6:55AM

It still boggles the mind to think that some as mediocre, someone as shallow, someone as sleazy as this Clinton woman gains high office in the U.S.

MIKE| 6.29.10 @ 1:17PM

DON,T FORGET HER HUSBAND STARTED ALL THIS CRAP WITH NAFTA. RICH PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS LIKE TO SUFFER POVERTY SO DON'T EXPECT HELP FROM MILLIONAIRES. TAX BREAKS FOR RICH EQUALS TAX BREAKS FOR SENATORS THEMSELVES. THE DEMS AND REP. PUT US IN THIS MESS BUT ISN'T IT FUNNY HOW THEW PERPETRATORS OF TOMORROWS US DECLINE ARE THE MILLIONAIRES OF TODAY. 400,000,000 FOR PAKISTAN, 2,000,000,000 FOR THE MIDDLE EAST AND A PRESIDENT TELLING THE WORLD HE IS SORRY OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN SO ARROGANT! WHERES YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE OBAMA OR DON'T YOU HAVE ONE FOR THIS COUNTRY......COULD OBAMA BE A MIDDLE EAST PLANT TO HELP DESTROY OUR NATION FROM WITHIN...... SEE HOW EVERYTHING IS GOING SO FAR WITH OUR COUNTRY'S DECLINE, EVERYONE WHO HATES US IS HAPPY SO THAT MEANS 90% OF THE WORLD IS CELEBRATING OUR DEMISE. THANKS SENATORS YOU ARE THE RESPONSIBLE ONES........MORE PEOPLE OUT OF WORK, NO MONEY, NO JOBS, NO HOMES, NO SAVINGS, NO RETIREMENT AND NO GOVERNMENT HELP EQUALS ONE THING.............REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 6.29.10 @ 10:49PM

And, yet, in all quarters, she is considered doing a fine job as Secretary of State - well, outside the right-wing echo chamber that is.

Monte.Crisco| 6.30.10 @ 12:17PM

Still considered a hypocritical moonbat in all quarters too. How much did you pay in income tax last year, Hilly?

danfromatlanta| 6.30.10 @ 1:02PM

Purpleguy must be referring to Hitlery's "reset" button gaff! Nowhere, besides the leftwing echo chamber is she considered to be doing anything, including a "good job". She is just there because the obamanation thinks that will keep her from running against his record of failures for re-election.

Richard Baker| 6.29.10 @ 7:12AM

Once again she shows her lack of cognitive ability. The Clintons are making an Ivy League education appear not worth the money. Let's confiscate half of the FORTUNE that she and Slick Willy have made since departing the White House and see if she'd like that. Wonder if they are still deducting Bill's underwear at $4 a pop?

Bill Husein O'Stalin| 6.29.10 @ 7:52AM

The Clinton's are nothing but opportunistic certified liars.

Bill Clinton's lie is famous, but Hillary's lie escaped public detection and like most sleazy political weasels Hillary has gone on to sow more societal destruction.

Here's a synopsis you can find on the internet titled Hillary's resume:

As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)

Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.'

Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (“Filegate”) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.

In order to open “slots” in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), illary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime--mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.

And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury

And Bill was impeached by the House.

And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. She avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath.

Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.

Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.

Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.

Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)

As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.

Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. you can find on the internet titled Hillary's resume:

MOS was 71331| 6.29.10 @ 2:44PM

Many thanks for this detailed, but certainly incomplete, summary. Hillary's been up to so many discreditable activities over the years, it's difficult to keep up with them. I can't decide whom I despise more, Hillary or Bill.

In a three-way comparison of Hillary, Bill, and 0bama, though, I detest 0 the most.

JmsA| 6.29.10 @ 2:51PM

Bill Husein O'Stalin,

In addition to all your above cited facts, should be added her termination for lying, etc., from her job with the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate process. Hillary, then 27-years-old, got a job at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who also happened to have been Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick matter. When the Watergate investigation was over, Hillary was fired, because, as her then boss Jerry Zeifman put it: She was a liar, and an unethical, dishonest lawyer, who conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

Although in the public eye for more than twenty years, no one in the press had previously delved into her Watergate history, particularly her
advocating extreme changes, including her recommendation to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel, not only ignoring the fact that same committee had most recently afforded such a right to counsel during the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, but also by removing those case files from public inspection in the committee offices. Thereby absconding evidentiary legal precedent for the right to counsel, such behavior not only predates, but reaffirms her propensity for such actions, including the charges leveled at her regarding the billing records for the Rose Law offices matter, and the hoarding of more than 900 FBI files on political opponents of the Clintons. She's gotten where she has, not by talent or avocation, but by the weight of her husband's name and connections, and an negligently omissive media.

WRTolkas| 6.29.10 @ 8:07AM

I hate to use this line again: "Once again." Oh well, if the shoe fits:

Once again, Lady Hillary (the woman according to her legend was named after the famed mountain climber) shoots fast and loose with the facts. Her Ladyship seems to forget that fact-checking is just a click and an internet hub away. But when you live in the mind of the smartest woman in the world, these little annoyances of the truth are minor inconveniences.

Thank you Bill, the democrat party, the people of New York, and the new messiah for providing the American people the quintessential example of the Peter Principle.

Please remember this come November.

Best regards,
WRTolkas

Stamford-Benet| 6.29.10 @ 8:33AM

Lazy venial, untrustworthy as the Clinton' s are how many elected oficial over the last 250 years have been any better?

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 9:45AM

Stamford-Benoit, heh,
I can name a whole bunch of honorable men and women.
Screw you, America hater.

JmsA| 6.29.10 @ 2:04PM

Ken (Old Texican),

An eloquently piquant rebuttal of a, if not ignorant, malicious overgeneralization.

Louis Jenkins| 6.29.10 @ 8:42AM

Hillary is at it again. How nice! You cannot expect anything from a liar but lies. I serious doubt she would recognize the truth if it stood up in her face and slapped her about. Hillary, Obumar, Biden (Bite Me), Pelosi, Harry Reid, all of them must go. Remember, we have a chance to get rid of them come November. (Thanks O'Stalin for the reminders why.)

John II| 6.29.10 @ 9:48AM

When you get right down to it, Associate Professor Rodham has been even less qualified for the position of senator or secretary of state than is Professor Obama for the position of president. After all, she's considerably more practiced than the Professor in the mendacious arts, blending a narcissist's delusions with a nincompoop's incompetence.

And now the liberal chatter is that the old cactus will be the Professor's running mate in 2012 in order to position her (so to speak) for the grand event of 2016.

Yet she remains truly qualified for nothing more elevated than her metier, the Grand Tantrum. If she were honest, she would retire to seek contentment in doing what she does best: scratching her oafish husband's face and throwing books at secret service agents.

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 9:49AM

We just gotta' focus on 2010, folks, But.....
Let us all quietly pray that a splendid candidate will emerge for 2012 .

We need a servant of we the people and a servant of the constitution. Lady Liberty needs a hand up.

Purpleguy| 6.29.10 @ 10:47PM

Lady Liberty is doing just fine, thank you. The right-wing is all a ruffle however....

Monte.crisco| 6.30.10 @ 12:19PM

WAH!

Monte.crisco| 6.30.10 @ 12:20PM

You libtards didn't seem to think so when the sky was falling from the Patriot act... and constantly calling Bush "Hitler"...where did all the panic go, purpledick?

Clinton nee Publius | 6.29.10 @ 10:09AM

Ms. Clinton has made the same mistake and fallen into the same trap that all liberal-progressives always find themselves in sooner or later: they refuse to acknowledge the reality that what they are proposing to do is to steal money as a way for government to pay for its costs of operations. Even though they know this theft will eventually bankrupt our treasury, this is allowable because it sets the stage for a return to economic feudalism and the tyranny that liberals crave. The history of the modern liberal-progressive movement completely documents these facts.

So let's look at the facts and see what we can learn from this.

In our economic society there are only three (3) ways for government to obtain money:

(1) steal it (government calls this taxation).
(2) gifts.
(3) earn it.

The next fact we have to come to grips with is the structure of government relative to the private-sector economy: historically, all governments have been defined as endogenous stakeholders in the private-sector economy, so that means they are "inside players" and can only obtain their money by taking it from someone else in the economy - government has no "secret stash" and all of the loans from the Chinese are really coming out of our pockets as well.

The practical impact of this arrangement is to preclude the government from the singular activity it could undertake to obtain money that is just as unlimited in nature as government spending - earning.

Earning is an unlimited activity because you can earn money by work (what we call wealth creation - "equity") or by investing (generating investment income that can be used as a command on future consumption). Generally, the more you invest, the less you have to work and eventually you can stop working altogether with all your bills being paid into the future by your investments.

To understand this impact is to first understand how money is created. In the Western system of accounting, money (currency) is an asset and we create assets by expanding our liabilities, expanding our equities or some combination of these two (2) activities (think of a balance sheet financial statement and you can come to realize this relationship). This wealth creation definition is at the core of the problems we face.

The government creates currency by expanding liabilities - no currency exists until we agree that the new currency is a liability owed to the banking industry. This means no real wealth is created in our economy and this also means the government has sidelined the one thing that can change everything about how our economy works.

By using the equity expansion method the government can earn the money it needs to pay for future costs of government and, in the course of time, the investment income stream will outpace future outlays and run a permanent surplus. All of this can happen without you or I ever paying a dime of taxation again.

What's the point?

People like Hillary Clinton believe they can only get theirs by taking yours - it's the core of the liberal philosophy of using the color of authority to steal money and use the power of the democratic voting process to sustain the scheme until the treasury runs out of money. This is the tale of every democracy of the last 2,000 years. Now we come to a great question of our time: do we allow them to bankrupt our treasury and destroy our democracy or do we embrace the only means we have that will actually address our fiscal woes and pay off our national debt? Ms. Clinton would have you believe that the ultimate failure of the American Way of Life cannot be avoided and I would have you believe that she is right - unless you are willing to do what is necessary to sustain our way of life. Which will you have?

John II| 6.29.10 @ 10:46AM

Interesting summation. Except for one glitch: "People like Hillary Clinton believe . . ." --after which. it's anybody's guess.

Here's my guess, after working with "people like Hillary Clinton" for more than forty years: They don't believe in anything except a kind of deracinated self-promotion. They really are, personally, nihilists. And it doesn't matter why so much as it does matter very much what the consequences will be unless they are sidelined back where they belong: academia, for example, which used to perform the useful function of keeping the nihilists safely locked away and off the streets. As things stand, they've broken out of the asylum.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:46AM

"Hitlery and Obama, perfect together."

Ken, I'm certainly all for praying for a splendid candidate to emerge for 2012, but one thing is for certain. They aren't going to be coming from the Democrat party.

Will we throw our hats behind the Republican nominee even if he isn't "perfect" enough? Even if he or she doesn't suit our perfect tastes just ever so precisely?

What will happen to our country if we do NOT?

Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 11:30AM

Hi Margie.
Of course he or she cannot come from the Democrat party. Did you happen to see the article quoting the US communist party chairman the other day? Identical platform to the Democrats'.
He is absolutely delighted with the "progress" made by the Democrats.

I guess I'm goofy, but I just refuse to accept communists running the US.

I saw your back and forth yesterday, and chose not to become involved. The idiots arguing with you are not worth my electrons here.

As I did state on another thread, "liberty is in retreat right now", and the place to stop the retreat and make a stand...are a whole bunch of Rs in congress....the best that "can get elected" in their districts/States.

If we can achieve a "stop" to our retreat.....only then can we begin our counter-attack without an "economic revolution" in our country...or worse...if the communists, (pardon the shorthand), decide to use force through the IRS...or the barrels of their guns.

If the woman consents to run, I would support Sarah Palin with my last dollar and my last breath. It truly is that simple. I have come to know Senator Jim DeMint, and feel the same way about him.
Why?
Because they both stand tall on their convictions, and I trust their character. I'm sure there are others out there I DON'T know well, who may be as fine.
Most of the names I see bandied about have not been "through the tempering fire" as of yet.

Some are too young, and some have chosen to walk "around the furnace" instead of through it. (Abednego was always one of my heroes. (Daniel 3rd chapter.)
Gideon was another of my favorite heroes. He learned to winnow out the "sunshine patriots" in his army.
Finally, I have come to shamelessly plagerize another splendid conversationalist here who admonished us to simply reply to the idiots..."you are either stuck on stupid...or you are an unrepentant communist."

I would quit plagerizing him/her if he/she would remind me who he/she is so that I could properly thank him/her.
(smile)

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 1:43PM

Ken,

The Communist party in America has ALWAYS been in agreement with the Democrat party. I remember finding out about this back in the 70's. Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, who escaped Communist prisons after 14 years, and came here to tell the U.S. that if we didn't wake up to the realty of Communism and help those who were being persecuted in Communist countries, that we too would eventually be overcome by it. He spoke before congress. You can look it up, peeps. (Peeps being a friendly term for people).

He wrote many amazing, and I mean amazing books about Communism, one entitled "Tortured for Christ." Another, "Marx and Satan." Another, "If that were Christ, would you give him your Blanket." Another, "Sermons in Solitary Confinement." Another, "Christ on the Jewish Road."

I learned all that I know and understand about the spirit of Communism from him. For a free newsletter go to Voiceofthemartyrs.com. The Underground church are still at work supporting with food and clothing those families of Christians still being tortured and imprisioned in Communist countries all over the world. This because of Richard Wurmbrand. There are others too, yes, but he played the largest role begining upon his release from prison back then.

I know this is a long post but my whole reason for it is that I SEE with his eyes. I understand what is at stake and what's happening because of the Leftist Communist Democrat party.

It is THE reason why it is SO important for us to recognize that unless we quit the NONSENSE about the Republican party just isn't "conservative enough".. it is just PETTY and ridiculous!

So UNITE behind conservative candidates in the party to get them elected. The Enemy has us so asleep and so fighting amongst ourselves with division after stupid division. PETTY PICKY STUPID divisions!

"Well! I'm a Constitutional Conservative, na, nah." Well WHO isn't? What conservative doesn't want that? Bob Grant recently said on his radio program that he deosn't get it. If a candiate is chosen by the Republican party that doesn't meet up with your exact standard of purity~ you won't vote for them?

~So you are willing to hand over the election to the Communists!

Why is it that we are willing to take out our guns and use them on ourselves, but not willing to use them on our enemy, the Communist democrat party? They see this and are laughing, as is the Enemy.

As for the other thread, I know no one wants to get involved because no one wants to take a stand. So we allow the lunatics to run the asylum. Our pal Tim* who goes about pretending to be a Tea Partier has my name as I accidentally posted it in here one day. He posted yesterday naming a library in a town near where I live. This lunatic actually SAID the following to me recently: "The Arab increase in population will soon cancel out your Neo-Con, Israel-Firster vote."

I am saying he is dangerous. And I'm letting you all know this.

Ken Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 7:03PM

Margie,
Tim*
Is not dangerous...trust me. You have lit him up very well for all to see.
The stupnagle is a "sliver" representative on that issue and you and I can only sigh at his stupnagleness...as does 99% of the folks who drop in here.
As long as he votes and supports a straight R ticket this fall, I can forgive him.

Otherwise, he is just another trolling lure of no consequence in the greater scheme of things.

Please, Margie, don't focus on the fishing lure...focus on the guy in the boat trolling the lure.
HE is the guy we must stop!

Fact is...many people do the right things for ALL the wrong reasons. Don't let Tim* marginalize you on one issue. You have too much to offer here.

Margie| 6.29.10 @ 7:34PM

Ken,

Maybe I'm TOO focused on the guy in the fishing boat, and so much so that I'm going over the edge of the boat. But Screw politics. Screw Liberals. I'm sick of these hypocrites who claim to be conservative and do nothing but attack me. These Libertarian Liberals are just as nasty as the Leftiststs, and ARE Leftists as far as I'm concerned. Who the H!@# do they think they are that just because we refuse to kiss their stinking rear ends and speak all flowers and hearts to them and play along that their philosophy of anti-war non-interventionism is AOK that they can proceed to accuse me or anyone else who would dare to take them on, of being un-American, extremist Right Wing Christian phony whacko Israel-Firster scum?

And the fact that no one thinks it is wrong, that no one says a peep to this freak is amazing and to me it just shows~ if they say nothing, they are in absolute agreement. In fact I believe they enjoy it. All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING!

I'm outta here.
p.s. Timmy* won't be voting straight Republican. The hypocrite said he wrote in his brother-in-Law on the ballot. He is a maniac Paul-bot who will only vote for a "non-interventionist" specimen of like value to himself.

uncle curmudgeon| 6.30.10 @ 5:25PM

Good points, Margie and OT. The key is to get the best you can get NOW, and then improve on it. Do we prefer a middlin' conservative, or should we stick with the traitorous Lefty? If the congress moves to the Right, is that better or worse? If we unite behind the standard-bearers and vote them into office we have 2 (or 6) years to groom their replacement. Reagan had the goodies in '64; he didn't make the grade until '80. The socialist scum now destroying our nation have held their faith in a Long March, indeed; for many of them starting when they left their '60s crash-pads and entered law schools in the '70s. The price of Liberty is not a quick fix in a single election. It is eternal vigilance. Let's take to heart the strategy of the great American jockey, Sonny Workman: "Move to the front, then improve your possition." We need to hose as much of the muck out of D. C. as we can this Fall. The Left, those masters of deceit, will spend evry day lying to the people and trying to organize their foes into circular firing squads. Don't fall for any of it. Vote these bums out!

Margie| 6.30.10 @ 10:03PM

From your beautiful mouth to God's ears, uncle curmudgeon!

Some of these people actually try and say that by electing Republicans (who aren't perfect conservatives in their eyes), we are just "slowly promoting Socialism" and that we may as not vote at all, or write in the name of our family member in good standing. Slowly promoting Socialism? AAARRGGGHHH!
Ever hear of the old movie, The Snake Pit?
Excelsior!

dw| 6.29.10 @ 3:52PM

How long will it take for us "little people" to understad that when the elitist, multi-millionaire democrats are speaking the are lying and when they speak of economics they are ignorant and when they speak of helping the peon its really about helping themselves. As they enjoy the luxuryof their private mansions they talk contemptuously of the dumb masses and how to further exploit our mental inferiority for their personal gain. There are enough sound bites by the One, himself, and Bite-me and many others that perfectly illustrate this and still so many continue to ask for and then recieve their boots on our throats. Their already giant egos grow even uglier when they gain power, yet we continue to support the same kind of hacks time after time. Our stupidity leaves us no chance.

Purpleguy| 6.29.10 @ 10:45PM

"Our stupidity leaves us no chance. " - yep, I'll give you that, you have no chance!

JMWinPR| 6.29.10 @ 9:25PM

Bill Husein O'Stalin and JmsA
Good points and here are two you overlooked. Ms Clinton was able to turn $1000 into $100,000 in the cattle futures market. No mean feat. She really should be Secretary of Treasury no State. In another slight of hand she short sold pharmaceutical stock in her Rose Law firm retirement account and then slammed the pharmaceutical industry in one of her speeches driving the stock down. I don't know how much she made on this one. I don't think Michael Milkin ever approached this level of greed. I know Martha Stewart didn't.

Purpleguy| 6.29.10 @ 10:43PM

"More broadly, Mrs. Clinton is ignoring the volumes of evidence that show a negative correlation between tax hikes and economic growth." - typical right-wing mantra... unfortunately it's completely wrong. In the last 30 years, the 2 greatest boom times followed large raises in taxes on the wealthy. In the 1980's Ronald Reagan did cut tax rates for the wealthy, which was then followed by 6 increases in taxes during his 2 terms. And, we all know that the 1980's were a time of growth and low unemployment.

In the 1990's, Bill Clinton raised taxes the largest amount in history up to that point, and presided over the greatest peacetime run-up in economic growth in American history.

So, you see, the facts don't bear out the tripe that this article spews. Those pesky facts simply get in the way of your long held ideology - and totally destroy your entire argument. Study hard, learn something, then try again. For this article - you fail. F.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.30.10 @ 7:59AM

Reagan's tax cuts were indexed to account for inflation. That had never been done before. Also, a temporary gas tax was implemented during the Reagan years.

As far as Clinton he was simply lucky. The thing that caused the economy to boom was technology and computer sales. The Clinton years were dominated in growth by the private sector.

Study after study proves that government interference in markets changes those markets. Higher taxes will eventually lead to a loss in the business cycle as consumers look for alternatives.

If what you state is true then the wealthy should taxed 100% and all of our problems would be solved.

Purpleguy| 6.30.10 @ 9:37AM

It is not higher taxes that causes the problem with the economy. What everyone forgets is that Ronald Reagan instituted tax reforms, that incented the wealthy to NOT invest in tax avoidance and depreciation schemes to save on taxes, but to invest in job-enhancing investments. Unfortunately, he traded these changes which aided the wealthy with the increase in the payroll taxes to support social security, thereby shifting the tax burden to the middle class and away from the richest.

There is no such thing as a "Free Market". Anyone who uses the term, doesn't understand economics and economic theory. Everyone who complains about government interference needs to read "Cornered", which details how corporations position themselves through predatory practices, propaganda (I mean advertising) campaigns, lobbying efforts, price collusion (which is illegal, but has to be proven), labor oppression and monopolistic behavior. The only power strong enough to counter the corporations and corporatist tendencies IS the government itself, which by proxy IS the people.

Marc Jeric| 6.30.10 @ 1:59AM

Well - we now know that La Hillary is a lyar; she lied about cattle futures trades, she lied about her name, she lied to the grand jury (in 120 minutes of testimony she said "I don't remember - I don't recall" 145 times); she lied about not knowing of Bill's f###s, etc. I consider her a classic POS.

Monty.Crisco| 6.30.10 @ 12:35PM

You must be Paul Krugman trolling right now because of all your moonbatty conspiracy theories of the private sector. No, to tin-foil hatted libtards like you there is no "free market", but fortunately we don't live in YOUR reality. You probably think corporate taxes are too low and the Citizens United vs. FEC was a bad decision. You know just enough economic theory to draw precisely the wrong conclusions.
You guys are such a sad lot - you have manifestly failed to besmirch Reagan's legacy so now you pathetic ministers of propaganda seek to co-opt it: "No, Reagan was a DOVE, and he RAISED taxes and he was actually a progressive!!" Some of these make me snort my coffee on the keyboard, but you really take the cake, purpledick! War is peace and freedom is slavery, too. right? Anyway, stop being a prog troll and using this site for your daily two minutes of hate.

guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:16AM

www.wmvconverterformac.com

More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland

More Articles From A Further Perspective

The Devils Koch

May 24, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

May 22, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Flatten the IRS

May 20, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

May 17, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Pick Obama’s Brain

May 16, 2013 | Paul Kengor

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/29/dumb-and-dumber

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|49 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|30 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|34 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|52 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|18 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|9 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.