Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, that's a lot of issues I disagree with. They kept saying they will create 20 millions jobs over and over through the platform. Lol. They would be lucky to break even. Gas, coal, and oil hire a lot of people right now, and all of those jobs would be gone.
It's not going to happen as fast as she wants but that's the way things generally go.
Quote:
Do they want to close private schools? That's the impression I got. More jobs gone. For profit health services gone? More jobs gone.
For profit or non profit people still have to work there. The same number of people still will need educated or healed.
Quote:
I'm a big proponent of wind power, but it is already expanding quickly, and the "clean energies" can't replace everything else in 20 years. Close all nuclear power plants? No thanks.
Sorry, I just don't agree with much of their platform.
It's a platform. No president gets their full platform especially in the time frame they set.
Maybe.......I just know the status quo isn't going to work long term and someone has to start the process.
I agree with you 100% that the status quo is awful. Tomorrow's jobs report will be another dud; there are already 94 M+ people out of the labor force.
If we want to create jobs, the solution is to reduce impediments to job creation. That means less government spending, reduced taxes, reduced regulations, eliminating minimum wage laws, simplifying the tax code, eliminating double taxation of repatriated foreign earnings, less EPA regulations, repeal of Dodd-Frank, repeal of Obamacare, etc.
Cruz and Rand Paul both slashed taxes in their tax proposals and the analysis indicated that the result would be massive increases (40%+) in capital investment and increases in take-home earnings equivalent to millions of new jobs. It makes sense logically, as both candidates' plans reduce impediments to business expansion and new hiring.
I agree with you 100% that the status quo is awful. Tomorrow's jobs report will be another dud; there are already 94 M+ people out of the labor force.
If we want to create jobs, the solution is to reduce impediments to job creation. That means less government spending, reduced taxes, reduced regulations, eliminating minimum wage laws, simplifying the tax code, eliminating double taxation of repatriated foreign earnings, less EPA regulations, repeal of Dodd-Frank, repeal of Obamacare, etc.
Cruz and Rand Paul both slashed taxes in their tax proposals and the analysis indicated that the result would be massive increases (40%+) in capital investment and increases in take-home earnings equivalent to millions of new jobs. It makes sense logically, as both candidates' plans reduce impediments to business expansion and new hiring.
Those making $5.00 can not afford their health care. You are then going to have to. I say that noting that Obamacare is NOT the answer but there has to be one.
Lax EPA regulations meant 300 thousand didn't have drinking water here.
I agree with you 100% that the status quo is awful. Tomorrow's jobs report will be another dud; there are already 94 M+ people out of the labor force.
If we want to create jobs, the solution is to reduce impediments to job creation. That means less government spending, reduced taxes, reduced regulations, eliminating minimum wage laws, simplifying the tax code, eliminating double taxation of repatriated foreign earnings, less EPA regulations, repeal of Dodd-Frank, repeal of Obamacare, etc.
Cruz and Rand Paul both slashed taxes in their tax proposals and the analysis indicated that the result would be massive increases (40%+) in capital investment and increases in take-home earnings equivalent to millions of new jobs. It makes sense logically, as both candidates' plans reduce impediments to business expansion and new hiring.
None of this will help as long as Glass-Steagall is not reinstated and Fed 0% interest policies are in force. When Big Corporations are given unlimited free money out creates tremendous distortion in the economic system that leads to more and more concentration of wealth. It is simply impossible to have a vibrant economy without a vibrant middle class that actually has purchasing power to buy things and had borrowing power to create new businesses.
Your plan, under current circumstances, will only accelerate the concentration of wealth. Note what happened the last time there was this much concentration of wealth in the 1920s.
I would also note, that under current circumstances, any increase in government spending will also increase the concentration of wealth. Government is working hand and hand to enrich Big Corporations. Hence the rigged system which Clinton helped to architect.
None of this will help as long as Glass-Steagall is not reinstated and Fed 0% interest policies are in force. When Big Corporations are given unlimited free money out creates tremendous distortion in the economic system that leads to more and more concentration of wealth. It is simply impossible to have a vibrant economy without a vibrant middle class that actually has purchasing power to buy things and had borrowing power to create new businesses.
Your plan, under current circumstances, will only accelerate the concentration of wealth. Note what happened the last time there was this much concentration of wealth in the 1920s.
I don't agree with ZIRP -- stable currency is one component of supply-side economics. Would have to look into G-S rule.
The middle class would be strengthened if we freed up the economy. Incomes would increase at all levels, but they would increase more at the top since high earners are paying most of the taxes (so tax cuts/hikes help/hurt them disproportionately).
Would you posit Communist (aka Sanders' economic policy) as the solution instead?
I don't agree with ZIRP -- stable currency is one component of supply-side economics. Would have to look into G-S rule.
The middle class would be strengthened if we freed up the economy. Incomes would increase at all levels, but they would increase more at the top since high earners are paying most of the taxes (so tax cuts/hikes help/hurt them disproportionately).
Would you posit Communist (aka Sanders' economic policy) as the solution instead?
Sanders was right on bringing back Glass-Steagall but wrong on any more government spending. As I said, government is now an appendage of Big Corporations which has a stranglehold on job formation (wherever slave labor is available) and also has the ability to destroy any competotion with access to unlimited free money.
There is no free market. There is no market at all. It is simply a game of Monopoly where one player has unlimited access to the bank. Rand and Ron Paul also call for the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, since it is the fulcrum of Bank power.
Educate yourself on different political systems before talking about them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
