Hillary Clinton has actually said that she has plenty of good ideas but Americans just can’t afford them. We can’t afford them? Do we really want someone who would tax the upper and middle classes to death in order to help the poor? (Please do not misunderstand me. I definitely think we should help the poor. However, I think this job should be left to benevolent people and charitable organizations. The government is incredibly inefficient and takes plenty of the money to pay its bureaucrats.) Raising taxes decreases spending, which can cripple our economy, for what reason again? Oh yeah, it’s supposed to pump more money into pointless bureaucratic agencies, spend more on a public school system that has incredibly low academic standards, that passes students who failed their classes, and that has an incredibly high drop-out rate, and to let more money go to pork barrel spending. Oh joy! That is exactly what I want my income to go to. To put the economy in a nutshell, the “Steal from the rich, and give to the poor” motto only works for Robin Hood. In real life, giving tax breaks to the rich as well as the poor is pure economic genius. Giving the business owners tax relief is a good investment because they will use it to benefit everyone in society instead of just themselves. The most obvious way they do this is by providing jobs, but every business also benefits the economy in another significant way: It provides more competition. Competition is the unparalleled, absolute best way to benefit consumers because it forces businesses to offer more of their goods and services for a lower price in order to keep their customers. Considering these facts, how is our economy supposed to survive being taxed to death to pay for Hillary’s universal health care? Can she not see that the high taxes are going to push all the business owners out of the country? Or does she not realize that they will take the jobs out of the country with them?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
both clintons have no idea what there doing. the seem like they played the american people just to get where they are, did they really help anyone.
"All talk and no substance."
No, they didn't. I completely agree. I only used Bill's saying to make Hillary's lack of economic expertise that much more ironic.
I completely agree with you! Electing Hilary Clinton will flush our economy down the toilet. Good argument!
An unfounded belief in the laissez faire will not help you write a blog. Will you please provide evidence.
I cannot defend Clinton's economic policies based on her unwaivering support for NAFTA, which is as you know is an insane trade policy. Why don't you discuss how swell the North American Free Trade Agreement is working for the average American?
Do you seriously defend the fact that William McGuire makes $124.8 million in total compensation of United Health Group? Can you tell me what makes one person worth so much? Do you really believe any of that money trickles down to you or me?
Lastly, your statement regarding taxing the "middle classes to death" has me a bit confused. Would you please link a page that provides information about this?
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
Your argument involving Mr. McGuire--Why should the government be involved in decreasing his income? The company policy that allows him to make that much is a private matter, not something the government should get involved in.
And I'm pretty sure that money trickles down in some fashion. I can say pretty safely that he does not have that money lumped in a bank account. He probably reinvests a lot of it back into the economy where it WILL trickle down (job creation).
Sorry one more question: what makes you so religiously inclined to believe that COMPANY B is more responsive to the your or me than its stockholders? It seems more naive to believe this than the bureaucracy you refer to with such disdain, which is, as you know, responsible to the body politik.
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly
"Why should the government be involved in decreasing his income? The company policy that allows him to make that much is a private matter, not something the government should get involved in."
Ok, are you saying the government that represents us does not directly or indirectly subsidize (in our name) the health care industry?
What do you think of the following analogy? (I'm trying to work this out on my own--I've yet to do sufficient research and I'm obviously not an economics major) But let's say you loan me a sum of money. I pay you that money back, oftentimes with interest.
What is different in this case? Indirectly we offer industry tax breaks, which you argue for, right? Or perhaps we directly subsidize the health care industry through bailouts--United Health Group gets sued by a patient, the federal government fits the bill to allow the business to stay afloat. And yet you still argue this corporation should recieve higher tax breaks, more public funding...? I might argue that subsidization is a loan for business to return its investment and eventually come to pay its loan to the commons. Where would you find disagreement in that? (Again I'm trying to work this out in my head--not come to any revolutionary conclusions or change your perception, really.)
Sustainably yers, Green Underbelly