Hillary: Bill to Be in Charge of Economic Revitalization
 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/news...inkId=24545184

Great. News. Bring back the high-octane growth years of Bill Clinton.

You mean you want him to create another Tech Bubble?

It was only partially a bubble. Most of it was real and due to productivity growth. Bringing the deficit down and gaining the confidence of Wall Street.

Hillary won't ever be president.

Then who's gonna be president?

trump

The economy is largely a psychological ploy. If Wall Street and investors believe they will net returns, then manufacturing increases and risk ventures are undertaken.

He "brought" down the deficit by acceding to some of the demands of Republicans, and raising taxes to exorbitant levels. You give Bill far too much credit. Structurally, he did not set into place policies that benefited the economy.

There was real efficiency gains and productivity growth during the Clinton years. Bubble? Some.

Studies have shown the rich people's labor supply is insensitive to changes in the tax code. So to raise their rates to 39% is consonant with empirical findings. And lo and behold, it worked amazingly well, as the economy chugged along. Innovation surged from the birth of the internet. Clinton's policies worked spectacularly.

And yes, you are correct and ceding to Republican demands. Clinton had credibility to ask Republicans forgo tax cuts for the rich because he gave up liberal demands for more infrastructure spending. Like Alan Greenspan, who is a libertarian, said, Clinton created a deficit-cutting competition between Democrats and Republicans. Those days are long gone.

But he didn't cede to ALL Republican demands. The original GOP version of the welfare reform bill didn't provide child care, which mothers need in order to work. The GOP bill would've been a disaster. The final one Clinton signed still had a few draconian GOP provisions in it, but it was workable. Republicans just want to throw widows and poor people out onto the street so they can starve, while Clinton wanted them to find work and become self-sufficient.

And then Bush comes in and blows the deficit out of control again, just like Reagan did. Even this year, every Republican candidate (except possibly Kasich) had irresponsible budget plans.

Hillary might be corrupt, but she is the only one able to bring back the Clinton years.

During the Clinton years, every decile of Americans, from the bottom 10% to the top 10%, saw their incomes grow. Demand for jobs was so high that even the most racist managers had to hire women, minorities, and disabled people.

Hillary doesn't have the ability to get along with the GOP.

Anybody who enables Trump's victory is nuts.

Hillary is wrong on all major, substantive issues. Wrong. She is wrong on liberties. She is wrong on foreign policy. She is wrong on taxes. She is wrong on spending. She is wrong on immigration. She is hateful, she can't get along with the GOP.

Trump is wrong on most issues, but if he were elected, he would need the cooperation of the GOP, or he would be incapable of getting anything done. Thus, because the GOP is better than the Democrats on the issues, is it better to entrust the Democratic Party which is wrong on all major issues or to entrust it to the GOP which is right on a few issues?

The Dems do nothing right. The GOP does one or two things right. That is not a ringing endorsement but it is a strategic vote.

Tell me which one of Trump's policies isn't absolute bonkers.

Ban Muslim immigration.
Default on our debt.
45% tariff on Chinese goods.
Build a wall on Mexican border.

Also, tell me why his support base is comprised of White nationalists and those without college educations.

Ku Klux Klan? What? I don't know anything about them.

Wrong > Bonkers.

I am not defending Trump, but Hillary is indefensible.

I actually stopped listening to Trump because he drives me nuts, but recently I have heard it reported he would identify whom he would consider for Supreme Court nominees. Hillary has stated she will use her appointments to overturn Heller, which she argues is wrongly decided. IOW, US citizens have no right of self-defense and no right to bear arms. This is a vital liberty. Trump has no wonderful history on this but has indicated he won't seek to eviscerate this liberty.

None of those nonsensical positions will he be able to implement. Some of Hillary's nonsensical positions might be implemented. That is the major difference. Trump will be cordoned off but Hillary will have power to do real damage. Moreover, the Democratic Party will eliminate personal liberties, wreak havoc on the healthcare system, raise taxes dramatically and increase spending thereby growing government exorbitantly. That must be stopped above all else.

Government spending as a % of GDP was lower under Clinton than Bush.

GOP are the irresponsible spenders, not to mention lapping up to their donors with tax cuts for the wealthy and creating social instability by exacerbating income inequality.

Nobody since Bill Clinton has been fiscally responsible. Nobody. Obama was better than Bush; he cut discretionary spending, but still widened the deficit.

I would argue Bill wasn't fiscally responsible but that Gingrich was.

The GOP argues in favor of fiscal responsibility but doesn't cut once in power. I recognize that problem with the GOP. The Dems only wish to raise taxes to confiscatory levels.

Republicans don't even pretend to be fiscally responsible anymore. Look at all their candidates's plans:

Cruz: Flat tax, brags about the support of Arthur Laffer, the father of voodoo economics. Insane.

Jeb!: Assumes the economy will grow 4% a year in his plan to pay for his huge tax cuts. Insane.

Carson: Flat tax, also insane.

Rubio: Only wants to cut the top rate to 35% from 39% (Clinton promised 36% when he ran), and wants to give the middle class a bigger cut. Great that he recognizes inequality is a growing problem. But he always wants to eliminate capital gains and inheritance tax. He'll be just like W. Bush. Irresponsible.

Clinton denied liberals a lot on their wishlists. That is responsible.

Gingrich, like Clinton, spent money where it mattered, like doubling NIH funding. And he recently said we should do it again. The government needs to make necessary investments in health and R&D.

What is insane about a single rate tax? To me, that is inherently the most fair tax there is. I never have understood why liberals favor a progressive income tax.

I understand we might not be able to eliminate certain taxes but you are being disingenuous.

The Inheritance tax only collects about $40 Billion, with a multi-Trillion Dollar budget, that is peanuts, but it is a rich person tax so nobody cares.

Cutting the capital gains tax is in line with what most industrialized countries do. It does stimulate investment.

I don't think trump can win it. There aren't enough old angry white men to get him the votes he needs in enough states.

A flat tax would exacerbate income inequality, which is socially destabilizing. Working class white males are dying at an alarming rate from suicides and alcohol poisoning.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf

When you have that happening, folks are prone to demagogues like Trump rising to power.

This is one of those "this tax by itself isn't much" games. Then you add them all up...

Income inequality is not the issue; income mobility is. And please don't show me one of those studies which show based on income percentiles the US is worse than Scandinavia. Those income percentiles are compressed so that doesn't mean as much.

We need policies that promote income mobility, overall mobility not mobility based upon percentiles. If we can have income mobility in all percentiles, then if the disparity increases, what the hell.

We need people to understand just voting to tax the up twenty or thirty percentiles is NOT the answer.

We need to limit the growth or stymie the growth of government altogether. Government in terms of growth is a luxury which we can't afford. We can't afford it. We have enough and don't need to grow it. We need to stop hiring government employees when they retire and limit bureaucracies which contribute nothing to the economy.

The estate tax is a punishment. You've worked and managed to save, and now that you save, you now punish somebody for succeeding. Typical liberal. Punish success during life through progressive taxation and punish the hell out of success upon death. Jealousy knows no limits.

I just can't understand the jealousy of the liberal mindset. You hate success. You want everybody to be miserable and Churchhill was wont to say. I want all to be successful, and we need proper incentives and rewards, not continual punishments. We don't need the disincentives for small businesses which a very important element of the economy and society. Yet Liberals and Dems hate, loath and want to destroy small businesses. I represent small business owners and don't understand the loathing liberals and statists have for this vital element.

Income mobility and income distribution are almost perfectly correlated.

I have read studies which say otherwise, but go ahead buy into the socialist mantra.

We do have problems with income and wages but that is in large part to the government's economic and fiscal policies of the past seven years. If we had not have the stimulus, we would have recovered more quickly and the income mobility would have increased. But socialists and neo-Keynesian philosophy will continue to drag us down.

This is easily proven. Go look at states with the.most income mobility and look at states that are most egalitarian. Utah is the most egalitarian state and the.most mobile. You don't need.a study, just numbers.

Ok how in the world would anybody be able to know that? The data in the pre-Keynesian era is of really crappy quality, so we really can't compare.

John B. Taylor from Stanford indicated previous data shows that recoveries are faster, unless stimulus is involved, which tends to crowd out investors and slow down recoveries.

There is NO multiplier effect despite fifty years of trying to prove it. We have to deal with business cycles and interfering makes it worse.

http://www.johnbtaylor.com/

That's a minority view but worth checking out after I get done with my work project.

I realize it is a minority view, but most macro-economists are by nature statists who have invested their whole lives believing government could smooth out the effects of the business cycle. And there is significant enough literature disputing the efficacy of the "multiplier" effect despite being a popular sacred cow.

Friedman of course disputed these assumptions, being a monetarist.

Friedman's views on monetary policy are now consensus too. Will get to this later.

Yes, but he did not agree with Keynesian policy on fiscal issues. And perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe he accepted the "multiplier" fantasy.

The problem with Keynesian fiscal policy is that you're supposed to increase spending and cut taxes during recessions, and do the reverse during times of plenty. Politicians don't have the willpower to do the latter, resulting in huge deficits.

Unlike politicians, the Fed has the resolve to raise rates when they're supposed to and cut them when they're supposed to.

However, during the Great Recession we already maxed out on monetary policy. Interest rates were at 0%. We had quantitative easing what, three times?

And Europe introduced negative interest rates, which didn't fare to well.

The Keynesian fiscal philosophy has lots of operational problems. First, the multiplier has never been proven. It is not based on human behavior, which is what Adam Smith premised his predictions on.

The amount and timing of spending is never timely. Government is not a finely tuned machine and as a result the whole concept of Keynesian manipulation of the economy is a fantasy..

Hillary eviscerating the 2d Amendment through bad Supreme Court appointments is a nightmare I am having.

She has stated Heller was wrongly decided in her infinite wisdom and knowledge.