Reasons We Hate Hillary Clinton

[Metamorph]

1. She's pitiful. She gets power but all she does is discuss how she's female and she wants poor people to have free stuff. Really? Disgusting.

2. No healthy human being should look like this, and no healthy anything else should either:





3. She's dumb. The American vote, for better or worse, is like one of those tests of strength at the fairground. More Republicans liked Trump than Democrats like Hillary. No one was going to switch to Hillary out of Trump hate.

4. She's disingenuous. We all know the Democrats wanted Bernie Sanders. She has no problem with being known as the person who abused the electoral college and allowed a fascist into power though.

5. Her PR was awful. "I'm With Her" is just "vote for me, I'm female." Imagine if Obama campaigned using "I'm With Him" and colored the word "him" black so everyone would remember he's black. That's so cringey. Hillary, people aren't being sexist against you in general, you just genuinely manage to be more repulsive than Richard Nixon ever was.

6. You're a foul one, Mrs. Hillary. You're a nasty-wasty skunk. Your heart is full of unwashed socks, your soul is full of gunk, Mrs. Hillary. The three words that best describe you are as follows, and I quote "Stink, stank, stunk!" However, maybe your heart will grow three sizes yet.

[Sumdumho]

I don't like her, but she isn't dumb. Shes really intelligent and calculating and cares more about her having power than she does about making the US better, and that is reason enough to hate her without making up other shit, she's dishonest, self-serving and is willing to do anything for her interests.

[Delilah]

[silke]

there've been a few reasons mentioned in this docu, including how she was apparently "destined to be president"

[Metamorph]

Have you seen those Hillary Clinton pictures? We need to beat the dead horse just to make sure it stays dead.

[Delilah]

"...in modern business and ministry, because of the heavy investment factors, other strategies are often tried with dead horses, including:

1. buying a stronger whip;
2. changing riders;
3. threatening the horse with termination;
4. appointing a committee to study the horse;
5. arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses;
6. reclassifying the dead horse as “living-impaired”;
7. hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse;
8. harnessing several dead horses together for increased speed;
9. donating the dead horse to a recognized charity and deducting its full original cost;
10. doing a time management study to see if lighter riders would improve productivity;
11. declaring a dead horse has lower overhead and therefore performs better; and
12. promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.”

[End]

She'd have started WWIII shortly upon accepting the office if she somehow managed to win legitimately as she's basically the Dem clone of McCain (i.e. primary reason I voted against her as "Hydrogen Hillary" was the worst case scenario at the time). She's the female version of a "cuck" as well for not ditching Bill for being the philandering skumfuck that he was/is. Oh man, I could go on and on and on but let's just stop at these high points. She's also a most disgusting and reprehensible representative of the human race. If she was the first person an alien race met I wouldn't hold it against em' if they decided to just crack our planet and core out its resources.

I mean, if the sentient life here, sacred as it is, is that fucking evil and twisted on that particular planet than why feel an ounce of guilt upon dooming them to extinction? Surely, there have to be exceptions to the rules and it'd be hard to argue against making one in that unique circumstance. A Witch species deserves exterminatus. And if Hillary were to somehow become the representative of our entire species? Yeah, I don't blame ya Aliens.

I only hope you're also just as crazy as we are such that you'd probably save a few of us because we're useful/uniquely charming somehow...

[consentingadult]

I like her: when she talked about deplorables, she hit the nail on the head. Western society reached its civilisation peak in the Sixties/Seventies, and never grew higher, because a large number of people (anywhere in the world), will not rise above their instincts and their need for short term gratification.

I greatly dislike Trump. but he is not the cause of the problems in the world, just an insignificant symptom.

It's like George Carlin said: "Garbage in, Garbage our. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.... so maybe it's not the politicians who suck, maybe something else sucks around here, like...the public!" That applies to either Clinton, Trump or even Sanders.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

lol I'm more with ashlesha and Sumdumho on this one. White straight men from rural class/small towns seems to dislike her the most tho I've noticed. She's an "Oprah" but she especially makes y'all feel bad.

[Investigator]

I have no disdain for her. She is a bad politician, but a good manager of people. As someone who has to be constantly analyze the fundamentals of the world’s economies (won’t get into why), the new Trump economy of tax cuts, trade wars, and disrupting international trade deals is going to run the country into the ground. I could not see Hilary doing any of this. If people were so afraid of her being corrupt and passing bad bills then they obviously did not realize that the senate was and is still a Republican majority meaning they would not pass without executive orders. Let’s also remember the Republicans controlled the House from 2017-2019, so a removal would be easy if Hilary was really up to no good. I don’t understand how people can be happy with themselves for electing the on of the worst presidents in American history. Hope you are happy with your supreme court judges Trump voters, hope it was worth. We republicans can seem so desperate sometimes, meanwhie the democrats fill their party with socialist and other left wing extemists (like how could you accept Bernie, like really) which makes it very hard for America to jump on the side of the Democrats when they object to Trump’s terrible actions.

[Metamorph]

I have no disdain for her. She is a bad politician, but a good manager of people. As someone who has to be constantly analyze the fundamentals of the world’s economies (won’t get into why), the new Trump economy of tax cuts, trade wars, and disrupting international trade deals is going to run the country into the ground. I could not see Hilary doing any of this. If people were so afraid of her being corrupt and passing bad bills then they obviously did not realize that the senate was and is still a Republican majority meaning they would not pass without executive orders. Let’s also remember the Republicans controlled the House from 2017-2019, so a removal would be easy if Hilary was really up to no good. I don’t understand how people can be happy with themselves for electing the on of the worst presidents in American history. Hope you are happy with your supreme court judges Trump voters, hope it was worth. We republicans can seem so desperate sometimes, meanwhie the democrats fill their party with socialist and other left wing extemists (like how could you accept Bernie, like really) which makes it very hard for America to jump on the side of the Democrats when they object to Trump’s terrible actions.

I didn't vote Trump, but Hillary would've immediately started a war with Syria last I heard. Hopefully Trump can be prevented from starting a war with Iran.

[FreelancePoliceman]

We republicans can seem so desperate sometimes, meanwhie the democrats fill their party with socialist and other left wing extemists (like how could you accept Bernie, like really) which makes it very hard for America to jump on the side of the Democrats when they object to Trump’s terrible actions.

A) Can you name one "extremist" policy of Sanders'?

B) I don't believe the Democrats can outright stop someone from running as a candidate. They already rigged the primary for Clinton last season; what else do you want them to do?

C) There's very little actual policy disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. 90% of it is cultural; for instance abortion rights, LGBT issues, and identity politics on both sides. There isn't a single Republican in the country who'd consider switching sides if only the Democrats got rid of that pesky Bernie Sanders.

D) Being a self-professed Republican, you show enormous generosity by freely granting political advice to the Democrats. I'm sure that if Democrats adopt your strategy of becoming more similar to the Republicans, they'll obviously become more successful.

[Metamorph]

A) Can you name one "extremist" policy of Sanders'?

B) I don't believe the Democrats can outright stop someone from running as a candidate. They already rigged the primary for Clinton last season; what else do you want them to do?

C) There's very little actual policy disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. 90% of it is cultural; for instance abortion rights, LGBT issues, and identity politics on both sides. There isn't a single Republican in the country who'd consider switching sides if only the Democrats got rid of that pesky Bernie Sanders.

D) Being a self-professed Republican, you show enormous generosity by freely granting political advice to the Democrats. I'm sure that if Democrats adopt your strategy of becoming more similar to the Republicans, they'll obviously become more successful.

Bernie is the only one I liked since he wasn't a neoliberal or a fascist. Hillary or Trump was like asking if I wanted to be shot or poisoned. I guess poisoned because there are antidotes and I might be immune anyways, while bullets mean certain death? Both still sound horrible. As I see it the U.S. is a fascist country and I like neither Democratic nor Republican party platforms. The definition of fascism is a merger of state and corporate power, and well, that describes the U.S. to a T. I'm personally making the U.S. a less fascist place until it's not fascist at all, and if all the normie NPCs on 16t and off want to cast Normie Smite and Fists of Conformity on me, so be it.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Bernie is the only one I liked since he wasn't a neoliberal or a fascist. Hillary or Trump was like asking if I wanted to be shot or poisoned. I guess poisoned because there are antidotes and I might be immune anyways, while bullets mean certain death? Both still sound horrible. As I see it the U.S. is a fascist country and I like neither Democratic nor Republican party platforms. The definition of fascism is a merger of state and corporate power, and well, that describes the U.S. to a T. I'm personally making the U.S. a less fascist place until it's not fascist at all, and if all the normie NPCs on 16t and off want to cast Normie Smite and Fists of Conformity on me, so be it.

There's not really any precise definition of "fascism", since as soon as you start getting into specifics you tend to begin either begin making the term so exclusive that Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy no longer falls under your definition, or so broad that it can be applied to almost any country. The merging of state and corporate power seems to be a big element, but is that all that's required for a state to be fascist? As you said, this would include the U.S., but also China, as well as most industrialized countries in the world. If we use the term that way, is there any point distinguishing "fascism" from "liberalism"? Or is fascism just the natural continuation of liberalism? And again you have to define "liberalism".

But that said, the States are a police state overrun by nationalism and xenophobia that puts people in concentration camps and constantly conducts wars of aggression. Comparisons to the Reichskanzler of Germany from the years 1933-45* are overdone and all, but I'm not sure what characteristics of "fascism" one could come up with to describe Germany and Italy's phases that don't also apply to the States.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that I like that you consider the U.S. to be fascistic, but I'm up too late and probably writing a jumbled mess instead.

*lol, why is Adolph's last name censored, @mu4 ?

[Metamorph]

There's not really any precise definition of "fascism", since as soon as you start getting into specifics you tend to begin either begin making the term so exclusive that Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy no longer falls under your definition, or so broad that it can be applied to almost any country. The merging of state and corporate power seems to be a big element, but is that all that's required for a state to be fascist? As you said, this would include the U.S., but also China, as well as most industrialized countries in the world. If we use the term that way, is there any point distinguishing "fascism" from "liberalism"? Or is fascism just the natural continuation of liberalism? And again you have to define "liberalism".

But that said, the States are a police state overrun by nationalism and xenophobia that puts people in concentration camps and constantly conducts wars of aggression. Comparisons to the Reichskanzler of Germany from the years 1933-45* are overdone and all, but I'm not sure what characteristics of "fascism" one could come up with to describe Germany and Italy's phases that don't also apply to the States.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that I like that you consider the U.S. to be fascistic, but I'm up too late and probably writing a jumbled mess instead.

*lol, why is Adolph's last name censored, @mu4 ?

Yes, I think fascism is the continuation of liberalism because corporations buy positions in the government and vice versa. Trump is less bad than Hillary because he's less effective than Hillary at implementing nearly the same policies. Bernie and a few of the 3rd-party/independent candidates were the only non-fascist candidates, and only Bernie was a serious non-fascist candidate. I don't think liberalism had to lead to fascism and Bernie Sanders is still technically a liberal as far as I know since he still believes in free markets rather than planned economies, which I think is a common sense policy. The reason liberalism led to fascism is because consumerism was created as an ideology. Classical liberalism didn't feature consumerism at all. Now the companies which create consumer goods merge with the government as a natural way of consolidating resources and money. It also leads to another effect: gerontocracy, colloquially known as "OK Boomer," since government office holders are corporate office holders, and corporate office holders aren't young. This is why there are no 19-year-old bureaucrats like there were in 18th-century Prussia.

[Metamorph]

*lol, why is Adolph's last name censored, @mu4 ?

It's obviously because mu4 is literally Hı̇tler.

[FreelancePoliceman]

It's obviously because mu4 is literally Hı̇tler.

lol. The name was censored for me when I posted last night.

[Metamorph]

lol. The name was censored for me when I posted last night.

It's still censored. I just know workarounds, and the first best use is calling him Hı̇tler for his censorship of course.

[Investigator]

A) Can you name one "extremist" policy of Sanders'?

B) I don't believe the Democrats can outright stop someone from running as a candidate. They already rigged the primary for Clinton last season; what else do you want them to do?

C) There's very little actual policy disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. 90% of it is cultural; for instance abortion rights, LGBT issues, and identity politics on both sides. There isn't a single Republican in the country who'd consider switching sides if only the Democrats got rid of that pesky Bernie Sanders.

D) Being a self-professed Republican, you show enormous generosity by freely granting political advice to the Democrats. I'm sure that if Democrats adopt your strategy of becoming more similar to the Republicans, they'll obviously become more successful.

A) Medicare-for-all even when US sports one of the worst deficits in the world. Then claims he will heavily tax the rich when they are reason America is still standing (though Trump tax cut was completely uncalled for). I find Bernie supporters tend to care about humanity a great deal, but I also find their actual plan to change things quite naive and not will, thought out.

B) Well not outright, but Bernie is not a democrat by definition. That’s why he has several years as an Independent. I hope you are being sarcastic about the rigging of the primaries.

C) Culture is very much tied to politics. I would definitely not say they are the same side on matter of abortion rights and LGBT issues. I mean, that us why they Republicans are so passionate about getting Supreme Court judges. Even if you don’t think Republicans would flip just by the removal of the far left, you definitely can’t say their presence hasn’t scared off the moderate democrats.

D) What you call enormous generosity, I call frustration for bad governance for 3+ years. The senate agreeing to drop sanctions on Russia, abandoning allies in the Kurds, blowing up inflation with unnecessary tax cuts. These are all action a republican party without Trump would bash relentlessly more than any Democrat around (except maybe the tax). I am personally hoping Biden gets elected as the current Republican party has showed quite incapable of watching for the country’s best interests. I was saying democrats should become more like republicans, I was saying they should become more like democrats and less like socialists (not saying they are now socialists, but they are trending towards that side of the political spectrum).

[Adam Strange]

HI, @Investigator. I just wanted to comment on some of your statements.

A) Medicare-for-all even when US sports one of the worst deficits in the world.

I assume you that you are making two assumptions here. One, that deficits are bad, and Two, that Medicare-for-all will be more expensive than what we have now.

First, deficits are not necessarily bad. I owe the bank a quarter million dollars but I'm not in financial trouble; it's all about what you get for that deficit. In any case, sovereign states that can print money are not in the same category as households, and they can by definition never go bankrupt in debts which are denominated in their own currency.
Second, here is a bit about what shifting to Medicare-for-all might mean, in terms of savings from lower medical and drug prices: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...or-all-battles. Bear in mind that other wealthy countries do have Medicare-for-all, and they are not going broke.

Then claims he will heavily tax the rich when they are reason America is still standing (though Trump tax cut was completely uncalled for).

The statement that taxing the rich will cause America to stop standing is bizarre to me. You do realize that the money gained by taxing the rich will go into the pockets of the rest of Americans, right? How will making the middle class richer cause America to "fall"? Will we lose the world race for the biggest yacht?
Most people have no idea how rich the rich are, and that they got that way by a reduction in their taxes, not by their amazing brilliance at running the world.
Here is something to ponder.
If federal tax rates were returned to the same levels that were in force in Nixon's administration, the government would take in enough revenue to send every wage earner a check that would raise their income to $50,000 every year. Every. Single. Wage earner. That's how much money the rich are taking out of your pocket by having reduced tax rates, compared to 1972. And the country was not going broke in 1972.

Also, I assume you know that the government doesn't tax people in order to get operating income. The government prints money, for Christ's sake. They take those tax dollars that you send them on April 15 and shovel them into a furnace somewhere. They don't need to tax in order to spend.
The government taxes for two reasons. The first is to give the paper that they print some value, and the second is to remove money from the system when the system starts to overheat (inflate) from too much printing. You are an ILI. You should know this stuff. It is fundamental to knowing about money.

I find Bernie supporters tend to care about humanity a great deal, but I also find their actual plan to change things quite naive and not wel, thought out.

Bernie does seem to have a hard time selling his ideas.

B) Well not outright, but Bernie is not a democrat by definition. That’s why he has several years as an Independent. I hope you are being sarcastic about the rigging of the primaries.

C) Culture is very much tied to politics. I would definitely not aay they are the same side on matter of abortion rights and LGBT issues. I mean, that us why they Republicans are so passionate about getting Supreme Court judges. Even if you don’t think Republicans would flip just by the removal of the far left, you definitely can’t say their presence hasn’t scared off the moderate democrats.

D) What you call enormous generosity, I call frustration for bad governance for 3+ years. The senate agreeing to drop sanctions on Russia, abandoning allies in the Kurds, blowing up inflation with unnecessary tax cuts. These are all action a republican party without Trump would bash relentlessly more than any Democrat around (except maybe the tax). I am personally hoping Biden gets elected as the current Republican party has showed quite incapable of watching for the country’s best interests. I was saying democrats should become more like republicans, I was saying they should become more like democrats and less like socialists (not saying they are now socialists, but they are trending towards that side of the political spectrum).

I think Biden will be elected. Whether he can improve things or not remains to be seen.

[Grendel]

The big killer for her was her abundantly overt neurodegernative condition. You don't convict a dog for embezzlement, and you don't pretend a tapeworm-brain can be a schemer.

My hot take on this is that we should be electing politicians at least ten years below the current average age for high offices, at any cost. There's probably a time-bomb of un-neutralized amyloid prions building up in the water supply as we speak. I can't make heads or tails of whether #####DRUNF has anything similar, but that election made it abundantly clear that the true rot in the political superstructure is far above and beyond the scope of this little catfight of barely-dissimilar parties we dare liken to any meaningful duel of ideology.

[Grendel]

HI, @Investigator. I just wanted to comment on some of your statements.



I assume you that you are making two assumptions here. One, that deficits are bad, and Two, that Medicare-for-all will be more expensive than what we have now.

First, deficits are not necessarily bad. I owe the bank a quarter million dollars but I'm not in financial trouble; it's all about what you get for that deficit. In any case, sovereign states that can print money are not in the same category as households, and they can by definition never go bankrupt in debts which are denominated in their own currency.
Second, here is a bit about what shifting to Medicare-for-all might mean, in terms of savings from lower medical and drug prices: http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press...or-all-battles. Bear in mind that other wealthy countries do have Medicare-for-all, and they are not going broke.



The statement that taxing the rich will cause America to stop standing is bizarre to me. You do realize that the money gained by taxing the rich will go into the pockets of the rest of Americans, right? How will making the middle class richer cause America to "fall"? Will we lose the world race for the biggest yacht?
Also, I assume you know that the government doesn't tax people in order to get operating income. The government prints money, for Christ's sake. They take those tax dollars that you send them on April 15 and shovel them into a furnace somewhere. They don't need to tax in order to spend.
The government taxes for two reasons. The first is to give the paper that they print some value, and the second is to remove money from the system when the system starts to overheat (inflate) from too much printing. You are an ILI. You should know this stuff. It is fundamental to knowing about money.


Bernie does seem to have a hard time selling his ideas.



I think Biden will be elected. Whether he can improve things or not remains to be seen.

I'm just gonna leave this here.

[Adam Strange]

This is the bottom line: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

[Investigator]

HI, @Investigator



The statement that taxing the rich will cause America to stop standing is bizarre to me. You do realize that the money gained by taxing the rich will go into the pockets of the rest of Americans, right? How will making the middle class richer cause America to "fall"? Will we lose the world race for the biggest yacht?
Also, I assume you know that the government doesn't tax people in order to get operating income. The government prints money, for Christ's sake. They take those tax dollars that you send them on April 15 and shovel them into a furnace somewhere. They don't need to tax in order to spend.
The government taxes for two reasons. The first is to give the paper that they print some value, and the second is to remove money from the system when the system starts to overheat (inflate) from too much printing. You are an ILI. You should know this stuff. It is fundamental to knowing about money.

Knowing the "fundamentals of money" is quite important to my career which has a lot to do with understanding capital markets. Now, I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just think you might be exaggerating some of my statements. I actually have no problem with increasing taxes for the rich, but it has to be done to the right amount. Will a 97% tax on the top 400 richest Americans lead them to keep the finances exposed to the American tax law. This will not only shock the top 400 richest Americans, but the top 2% will get frighten by these changes. What happens when people in charge of large amounts of wealth get scared? They and their wealth runs away and hide (lol). Despite the expenses involved with moving wealth, shocking them would make it seem like a much more viable option. However, it is not only rich Americans that you have to worry about, you have to worry about foreign investors. World wide sentiment will certainly drop which means less of an inflow of international cash affecting America's Balance of Payment. This will will push "Corporate America" to move their business elsewhere. As a result the FED will lower rates to make investing more enticing which drops the currency value. America does not benefit from a weak currency (America runs a large trade deficit) as they rely on capital flow. I haven't gotten on the topic of Bernie's proposal to increasing the tax rate to 50% to those above 2,000,000 income.

Just because money flowing into middle class America is good as it increases Consumer Confidence doesn't mean that it can't come without consequences if done to an extreme. It is very easy to spook markets. There are smart ways to tax the rich, but there are certainly dumb ways.

Some other things to note: Running large debt isn't necessarily bad as long as you monitor it properly. Bernie has mentioned nothing that would benefit America's GDP. You could say he could just ask the Treasury to "print" more money, but you should know that quantitative easing done too long destroys an economy for the short-medium term at least.

[Adam Strange]

You have raised some points that other people have raised before. Let's look at them in detail.

Knowing the "fundamentals of money" is quite important to my career which has a lot to do with understanding capital markets. Now, I think we are pretty much on the same page, I just think you might be exaggerating some of my statements. I actually have no problem with increasing taxes for the rich, but it has to be done to the right amount. Will a 97% tax on the top 400 richest Americans lead them to keep the finances exposed to the American tax law. This will not only shock the top 400 richest Americans, but the top 2% will get frighten by these changes. What happens when people in charge of large amounts of wealth get scared? They and their wealth runs away and hide (lol). Despite the expenses involved with moving wealth, shocking them would make it seem like a much more viable option.

Here is what actually happens when you tax the rich, in contrast to their threats: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

Personally, for the 2% of billionaires who do leave the country and set up "residence" in a tax haven, I'd propose a law stating that 100% of the income that they derive from activities in their original country would be taxed forever, no exceptions and no returns. If they want to benefit from a country's laws, then they need to pay for that country's infrastructure. I think such a law would be very popular.

However, it is not only rich Americans that you have to worry about, you have to worry about foreign investors. World wide sentiment will certainly drop which means less of an inflow of international cash affecting America's Balance of Payment. This will will push "Corporate America" to move their business elsewhere.

I don't see GM moving their headquarters to China. Nor Microsoft, either. There is a reason that corporations incorporate in the US, and that reason is the stable laws that the US has. The fact that Apple has made Ireland a tax haven simply points out the fact that corporations normally act as sociopaths unless they are held accountable. https://itep.org/fact-sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/ Personally, I think that denying Apple access to US markets would fix their tendency to benefit from US laws without actually having to pay for those benefits. Let them see how many iPhones they can sell in China. And how well China respects the patents that presently allow Apple to reap huge profits.

As a result the FED will lower rates to make investing more enticing which drops the currency value. America does not benefit from a weak currency (America runs a large trade deficit) as they rely on capital flow. I haven't gotten on the topic of Bernie's proposal to increasing the tax rate to 50% to those above 2,000,000 income.

Actually, having a "weaker" dollar does help most people in the US, because it means that US products are cheaper for the rest of the world to buy, and cheaper products means that more are sold, and more are produced and therefore more people are employed. It also makes Mercedes more expensive to buy, which means that a rich person might choose to buy a Tesla instead, thus employing Americans. When the money stays in the country, it circulates here, it doesn't go elsewhere where it acts as a claim against our future labor. "A foreigner with a paper dollar can tell an American, "By virtue of me having this dollar, you promised to work for me for a certain length of time, and I'll give you this piece of paper in exchange for your real labor. Lol."

As for Bernie's proposal to increase taxes on millionaires, here is an historical article about tax rates. Please read it carefully, because I discovered that when I started making more than the average income, I started acting like the guys described: https://www.alternet.org/2008/11/why...id_high_taxes/

Incidentally, I pay as little tax as I legally can. I have a tax attorney and bookkeepers to ensure that I pay what I owe and not a cent more. In practical terms, this means that I can stack up dollars past what I need to survive and buy toys with them. If the personal tax rates were higher, I would avoid paying taxes by investing more in my business (since capital gains taxes would be lower in comparison). And so would everyone else. And I'm sure that you know, investment is the key to future earnings, assuming that you aren't paying politicians for favors, which can have much higher returns but is much worse for the country.

Just because money flowing into middle class America is good as it increases Consumer Confidence doesn't mean that it can't come without consequences if done to an extreme. It is very easy to spook markets. There are smart ways to tax the rich, but there are certainly dumb ways.

Another thing to note: Running large debt isn't necessarily bad as long as you monitor it properly. Bernie has mentioned nothing that would benefit America's GDP.

Yes, the term "properly" and Bernie's proposals are both highly uncertain and need more explanation.

[Metamorph]

The big killer for her was her abundantly overt neurodegernative condition. You don't convict a dog for embezzlement, and you don't pretend a tapeworm-brain can be a schemer.

My hot take on this is that we should be electing politicians at least ten years below the current average age for high offices, at any cost. There's probably a time-bomb of un-neutralized amyloid prions building up in the water supply as we speak. I can't make heads or tails of whether #####DRUNF has anything similar, but that election made it abundantly clear that the true rot in the political superstructure is far above and beyond the scope of this little catfight of barely-dissimilar parties we dare liken to any meaningful duel of ideology.

Yes, but this won't happen because the ironic result of fascism is gerontocracy. If you merge state and corporate power, corporate leaders are almost never young, so the government will be full of old farts. People need a better imagination to end fascism and keep our government liberal, a techno-cultural imagination instead of pitting "disruptive" and "factual" technology against "gradual" and "unessential" culture. Culture is essential, and capabilities should be cultivated rather than only abstract values, though without abstract values, there can be nothing.

I still think liberalism didn't have to end this way and even if we go socialist we'd still be liberal because liberalism means Enlightenment ideals, democracy, free markets, and natural rights, all of which seem perfectly compatible with socialism also known as the workers owning the means of production. I'd say "the gig economy" is the inevitable tide of socialism. Ironically neoliberalism and neoconservatism aren't and can't be liberal in the original sense.

[Adam Strange]

Knowing the "fundamentals of money" is quite important to my career which has a lot to do with understanding capital markets.

@Investigator, if knowing about capital markets is important to you, you might want to read this guy's blog. He's ILI, too. https://ritholtz.com/
He isn't the only sensible guy out there, but he's pretty good.

[Metamorph]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

In other words, Americans need to focus on their states more and less on what's going on in New York, California, and Texas, which are basically just leveraging themselves so smaller states have to pay for all their luxuries. News at 11.

Changing the style of local journalism and local programming in general is one of the first places to start. An American state is more like a European Union country than an Australian province so let's not pretend our federally-assimilated states/countries are equal to a podunk town. This puts the Sinclair Incident in a new light.

[Investigator]

You have raised some points that other people have raised before. Let's look at them in detail.



Here is what actually happens when you tax the rich, in contrast to their threats: https://www.theguardian.com/inequali...naires-threats

Personally, for the 2% of billionaires who do leave the country and set up "residence" in a tax haven, I'd propose a law stating that 100% of the income that they derive from activities in their original country would be taxed forever, no exceptions and no returns. If they want to benefit from a country's laws, then they need to pay for that country's infrastructure. I think such a law would be very popular.



I don't see GM moving their headquarters to China. Nor Microsoft, either. There is a reason that corporations incorporate in the US, and that reason is the stable laws that the US has. The fact that Apple has made Ireland a tax haven simply points out the fact that corporations normally act as sociopaths unless they are held accountable. https://itep.org/fact-sheet-apple-and-tax-avoidance/ Personally, I think that denying Apple access to US markets would fix their tendency to benefit from US laws without actually having to pay for those benefits. Let them see how many iPhones they can sell in China.



Actually, having a "weaker" dollar does help most people in the US, because it means that US products are cheaper for the rest of the world to buy, and cheaper products means that more are sold, and more are produced and therefore more people are employed. It also makes Mercedes more expensive to buy, which means that a rich person might choose to buy a Tesla instead, thus employing Americans. When the money stays in the country, it circulates here, it doesn't go elsewhere where it acts as a claim against our future labor. "A foreigner with a paper dollar can tell an American, "By virtue of me having this dollar, you promised to work for me for a certain length of time, and I'll give you this piece of paper in exchange for your real labor. Lol."

As for Bernie's proposal to increase taxes on millionaires, here is an historical article about tax rates. Please read it carefully, because I discovered that when I started making more than the average income, I started acting like the guys described: https://www.alternet.org/2008/11/why...id_high_taxes/

Incidentally, I pay as little tax as I legally can. I have a tax attorney and bookkeepers to ensure that I pay what I owe and not a cent more. In practical terms, this means that I can stack up dollars past what I need to survive and buy toys with them. If the personal tax rates were higher, I would avoid paying taxes by investing more in my business (since capital gains taxes would be lower in comparison). And so would everyone else. And I'm sure that you know, investment is the key to future earnings, assuming that you aren't paying politicians for favors, which can have much higher returns but is much worse for the country.

Before I get into this, I want to clarify that I am not for tax cuts for the rich. What Trump did with the tax cut was terrible for the economy. In other words, I am very much up for a corrective tax increase.
Three big problems:

1) Shifting America into a country that makes and exports more goods would be a pretty long process. Currently America runs a huge trade deficit (America's Current Account is atrocious), but they make up for it in capital flow. What happens in the mean time as they get used to a lower value currency? I am sure you know the answer to this. In order to have more American goods, the change has to be slow and gradual in order to not to shock the economy's real growth.

2) The three crashes mentioned in the first link are.....well, bad pieces of evidence to show tax cuts will cause the current economy. The 2008 crash did not have that much to do with taxes as it did with bad risk management by banks and other financial institutions. Canada didn't avoid the crash because they had better tax laws, but because their banks took those trash mortgage securities off their books. The other times were not under conditions that are remotely similar to those of the present day (i.e we aren't recovering from WWII and the Vietnam War back to back).This sort of leads into my next point.

3) It is hard to look on recent history to predict what people would do under this level of tax reform: https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s. You see, the government doesn't reduce taxes "because the America is the richest country in the world."-Bernie Sanders. While his statement is quite true, it is not a formal reason to raise taxes to the ridiculous levels he is proposing especially in the present day economy.

[Adam Strange]

Before I get into this, I want to clarify that I am not for tax cuts for the rich. What Trump did with the tax cut was terrible for the economy. In other words, I am very much up for a corrective tax increase.
Three big problems:

1) Shifting America into a country that makes and exports more goods would be a pretty long process. Currently America runs a huge trade deficit (America's Current Account is atrocious), but they make up for it in capital flow. What happens in the mean time as they get used to a lower value currency? I am sure you know the answer to this. In order to have more American goods, the change has to be slow and gradual in order to not to shock the economy's real growth.

2) The three crashes mentioned in the first link are.....well, bad pieces of evidence to show tax cuts will cause the current economy. The 2008 crash did not have that much to do with taxes as it did with bad risk management by banks and other financial institutions. Canada didn't avoid the crash because they had better tax laws, but because their banks took those trash mortgage securities off their books. The other times were not under conditions that are remotely similar to those of the present day (i.e we aren't recovering from WWII and the Vietnam War back to back). This sort of leads into my next point.

I pretty much agree with all of the above, with the caveat that it changed for the worse gradually, and it can change for the better just as fast.

3) It is hard to look on recent history to predict what people would do under this level of tax reform: https://www.bernietax.com/#0;0;s. You see, the government doesn't reduce taxes "because the America is the richest country in the world."-Bernie Sanders. While his statement is quite true, it is not a formal reason to raise taxes to the ridiculous levels he is proposing especially in the present day economy.

This raises the question of what constitutes a "ridiculous" level of taxation. During WWII, the tax on income over $1M was 90%, and the US did pretty well during that time. Also, after you reach a point where your basic needs are taken care of, most people (not everyone - for some people, no amount of money is enough to make them feel safe) just don't feel the need to make tons more money. It only represents a marker to them, or a way of comparing their performance (in their minds) with that of the people they know. Absolute levels aren't that important, so much as relative levels. I could be making $25k/yr, and as long as that was more than my brother-in-law, I'd be good. Lol.

So I believe that progressive taxation can make societies more equal, and should be used for that purpose. If you know any really rich people, you will find that they don't usually work for money. They work for glory or recognition or to avoid boredom, or ideally, for some worthy cause. The money is secondary.

As for why I think a more equal society is a worthwhile goal, it is because I read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-.../dp/1608193411

[flames]

I think the logical thing to do is to hate EVERY politician known to man.

[marooned]

She's not running, so who cares? OP seemingly = I don't like her? I didn't like her either but I really don't like Trump. He's the worst US president ever.

[kingslayer]

I hate her simply because she is a woman.

Kidding. She's an extremely repulsive individual as is her husband.

[Disturbed]

I'm so relieved Hillary Clinton didn't become President although I actually expected her to lose unlike most people, I wasn't surprised when I saw that Trump won but I do remember my nerves eased up a little bit. Trump isn't good, but he's nowhere near as bad as if Hillary had become President. Most people don't know how lucky we are that she didn't win. I knew his judgment and his ability to correct his mistakes was a lot better than Clinton's and Clinton's irrational foreign policy and need to police the world just enraged me with how stupid and inhumane and wreckless it was and how little change she wanted and how much she opposed civil liberties. She wanted a dress code enforced for girls. Hillary Clinton just couldn't get out of something once she impulsively started it and she just had a hard time saying no.

I really don't want Biden to be President. Welfare policies and medicaid expansion have screwed me over as I knew they would (I kept telling my mother no I wasn't going to take medicaid and SSI and then she got a guardianship order and made me take abilify even though i had been in perfect control of myself and then when i started the abilfy i became agitated and uncomfortable and violent and didn't withdraw well, and my parents don't even remember what i said and did on it and the violence and unsuccessful withdraw of it made me do), too bad the Republicans never did anything about them before anti-psychotics through guardianship order really screwed me over, made me so uncomfortable and cause all sorts of other problems and I worry that they will continue to. I've been on risperdal because my parents are requiring me to the psychiatrist said I didn't need it, but then my parents told them they were my legal guardians and that he had to put me on it. And the Democrats run the state I'm in and that's how little they care about right to bodily integrity, they just want control that's all, they criticize Trump for sexism, yet they won't ease licensure requirements and economically empower nurses 93% of whom are female. They won't say a word about euthanasia. Northam seems racist, single-minded, unyielding, insincere, concerned with getting whatever he wants, overly committed to security, and being a leader and has refused to support public discourse on legalizing marijuana when actually a Republican in the legislature (Tommy Norment) advocated easing restrictions on it awhile back. The Democrats are scary at how far right they are on so many issues and then favoring more welfare spending and willing to then use the police whom they criticized to enforce what they want (gun control). Not all cops are bad, some are beautiful, but the Democrats criticized them in the 2016 election and now they say the police have to enforce gun control, that just shows how angry and fearful and willing to do whatever they can to get control. I don't really have an interest in owning a gun I doubt I'd know how to use it, I don't fear for my life so much that I'd waste my time learning how to use it, and it's unlikely I'd have to defend myself, but I still think gun control is just shitty, anti-femininist, doesn't belong in civil society, and I have faith that gun owners know what they're doing. Just a few televised shootings and people demand gun control, it's extremely unlikely for someone to get shot and often when they did they did something they shouldn't have.

I think Trump should apologize for what he said about women and ethnic groups, but damn if the Democrats aren't almost as angry and hateful and anxious and bitter as the Republicans were in the 1860-1870s. Radical political decentralization=peace, happiness, productivity, fun, individualism, gains in black prosperity (slavery was protected by the federal govt and if people like Daniel Webster really cared about them then they would've just networked and bought their freedom and Walter E Williams would know the effects the welfare state has had on blacks and white-owned businesses would've eventually started serving blacks more without the civil rights act of 1964, they could've been paid and educated by sympathetic whites to serve blacks and it's not like many business owners would prosper if they discriminated against blacks today), and harmony.

[Disturbed]

I'm just as repulsive as Hillary Clinton, unfortunately.

[Disturbed]

I don't know why so many people think deficits don't matter, as you pay interest on the national debt, federal/govt services are terrible and they always will be, and paying interest on the national debt results in less productivity and less real goods and services to enjoy; there is actually more evidence from history that deficits hurt the economy (and there is all the evidence in the world that deficits and centralized monetary policy never helped the economy) more than they help it, especially if you also have taxes and inflation. Deflation is much easier to work with than inflation, and higher interest rates are better because there are long term consequences of inflation and it's a waste of money. Unless you have a Confederation with no head of state where the debt is decentralized based upon population every 3 years which is better than what we have now. One of the only things wrong with the set was that ratified was that it didn't allow decentralization of the debt based upon population by triennial census.

The facts about Hamilton's character from his behavior and his bitterness, and hatred and envy and anger and manipulation and non-objectivity and his sexist comments about Jefferson saying he something he had a womanish appreciation for the arts and criticizing him and Aaron Burr for being sensual (i worry about becoming worse than hamilton was, if i'm not already) the facts that the vast majority of people didn't want the Constitution or central bank, or a central mint and that Washington's policies had disastrous results (the Whiskey Rebellion, the crash right after FBUS was started then Fries rebellion because of Adams policies) and the fact that he had lost his popularity at the time of his death and didn't regain it until the 1880s. Washington was willing to tax people and send tax collectors to harrass people/violate peoples' rights just like I have violated peoples' rights to protect myself and just like most people would to protect economic --self-interests and self-image, he disliked people almost as much as I do and then he just went along with leadership as president and whatever Hamilton demanded when he shouldn't have. Sure Jefferson owned slaves and didn't get rid of them because he could never quite control his spending which I admire him for his ability to enjoy life to the fullest and his willingness as President to allow people to enjoy themselves as he did for himself and I still think his character was as good as Washington's and better than my own for sure. I worry that I've distorted Jefferson's principles and that he'd want me eternally punished or banished from him permanently as he thought Paul distorted Jesus's principles.

[Disturbed]

the OP's thread language was pretty good he or she is good at communicating, and I agree with much of what he or she said so that's why I clicked like (I really think she's dumb too and her disdain for luxury and need to forcibly use other peoples' money than her own to give to the poor and saying shit like "we're going to take SUVs away from you for the common good" I don't think her IQ is high and I know I'm not smart nor above average IQ either, but still, the truth needs to be said and I almost always need to speak my mind). I jump around a lot and am not really as consistent with clicking like this post as I should be.

[FreelancePoliceman]

@Disturbed. I’m too lazy to reply to everything you said, but no one thinks the deficit just “doesn’t matter.” The current, simplified thinking is that as long as it’s possible to borrow money at an interest rate less than GDP growth, it should be done, because the taxes that that saves are (in theory) re-invested into the country. You could just as well say the taxation necessary to stop borrowing would cause a decline in the standard of life. As it is, the budget of the States is almost practically unlimited for other reasons, so it’s a moot point anyway.

And the Founding Fathers were not good models for morality or particularly good governance. You shouldn’t idolize them.

[Disturbed]

@Disturbed. I’m too lazy to reply to everything you said, but no one thinks the deficit just “doesn’t matter.” The current, simplified thinking is that as long as it’s possible to borrow money at an interest rate less than GDP growth, it should be done, because the taxes that that saves are (in theory) re-invested into the country. You could just as well say the taxation necessary to stop borrowing would cause a decline in the standard of life. As it is, the budget of the States is almost practically unlimited for other reasons, so it’s a moot point anyway.

They should cut spending so they won't have to borrow or raise taxes. People were actually happier, had more income, more wealth, and were more productive when monetary policy was tight and taxes and public spending were low. Most people didn't want the Constitution, in the 1790s things were even darker than they were in the 1780s, then when Jefferson became President people were more prosperous and except for the embargo act and the war of 1812, it was pretty much that way until 1861, especially in states that didn't have expansive monetary policy. I don't really care about what matters to most people, but there are few times throughout history when public spending was high, and people were prosperous and medicaid isn't even accepted by many of the best doctors and I personally feel guilty using it and would've been better off had my parents not signed me up for it. The Reagan years were probably the biggest exception to people being prosperous with high public spending, but his inflationary policies resulted in the savings and loan crisis by the time Bush took office.

And the Founding Fathers were not good models for morality or particularly good governance. You shouldn’t idolize them.

They weren't, except for Jefferson. But the thinker who is dead who I agree with most is Murray Rothbard. He was funny, logically consistent, informative, had researched and described the causes for why things were the way they were well and his ethics system made the most sense and he was morally immaculate himself. And people would have restraint from enslaving, looting, raping, stealing from, and murdering people without centralized government, it's the nature of enough humans to not do to others what they wouldn't want done to them and there would still be logical consequences without centralized government. Centralized government systems (legislation that creates a head of state, monarchies, dictatorships) are usually established and supported only by a small group of people, if they think they know the "common good", which there is none, then they obviously can't act in the best interests of anyone, because the "common good" will just become mediocrity in the long term, at best. Individuality is not respected by most people and then most politicians throughout history have suppressed and even many of the people who wanted to be individualistic who once supported that government become dissatisfied with who they voted for because that politician really didn't care about the newly dissatisfied persons' interests while that politician was thinking about a whole group, most individuals whom he doesn't even know. So many people say "he did it for the country", well, no he did it for himself. ILE-Ti are generally the least hypocritical and most likely to hold themselves up to their own standards and most understanding and respectful of individual boundaries and safety and fair in justice (because they care about individual to individual reciprocity more than control or power and can come up with policies that are neither too brutal nor too lenient), and not demanding of unreasonable collectivist compromises (regardless of ideology) when they're political leaders (though not necessarily as political thinkers), yet Jefferson was the only ILE-Ti who was ever President... that should tell people something about centralization of political power and politicians. ILE-Ti usually don't want to be political leaders badly enough but when they do become heads of state it's usually not because they had it as their own personal goal and if they feel like they hadn't lived up to their principles, then they resign, give up protection for themselves, or don't run again. Jefferson, Mohandas Ghandi, and Indira Ghandi and Elliot Spitzer didn't really have a long term goal of being heads of state or for power and had been firm opponents of abuses of power while not abusing power before they became heads of state.

[Kill4Me]

Hillary is fake as fuck.