$20,000,000,000,000.00 Decit...What is Hillary's Plan to REDUCE it?

[Londoner]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

The deficit isn't 20 trillion. The debt is.

Facts. Doy!

I stand corrected.
It's been a LOOOOOOOOOONG day.
Now please explain how Hillary's plan will reduce or eliminate it.

Debt = bondage.

They nave no plans to pay it down

Capitalism LOVES debt slavery.

Here is how it works.

The capitalist is driven by the highest possible profit.

In order to make the highest possible profit, the capitalist requires the lowest possible operating costs (low taxes, few regulations, cheap raw materials, low labor costs).

Problem is: when you pay your workers low wages (so that you can make higher profits), your workers can't afford to buy the products you're selling.

So the banking system converts your profits into high interest loans for your underpaid workers so they can buy your stuff. This makes you even more money, and it creates a disenfranchised class of wage serfs who grow increasingly desperate and will work for whatever table scraps you pay them. Win, win.

It gets better.

If we remove debt from the system, that is, if we stop loaning the beleaguered lower classes the money to buy shit, than profits would dry up.

Debt slavery isn't incidental to post-70s capitalism. It is the engine.

 

[presonorek]

Well, we really taught the North Vietnamese a lesson! Now that they are appropriately contrite, they are on our "most favored nation" trading list, and we are selling them arms!

We bombed North Vietnam so fucking hard their country was looking like a moonscape.

They crawled to the Paris Peace Treaty negotiations, and South Vietnam would still be free today IF THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT CUT THEIR MILITARY FUNDING like the shit bags that they are.

You dumb bastard. The United States has active duty military troops stationed in 150 countries. What the hell do you think this is...another Roman empire?

Of course, you didn't bother to analyze that date, did you?

For instance, you didn't parse out the guards at our embassies, did you?

You didn't parse out the military aides, instructors, and liaisons, did you?

You didn't parse out the military personnel attending universities, war colleges, or providing guidance and assistance to the educational processes in those countries, did you?

You didn't parse out the military personnel providing humanitarian services to countries ravaged by disasters - both natural and man made, did you?

Simply, you have a mission --- and you won't let any facts get in your way. You ignore reality, you bend the truth, and sometimes, you even outright lie.

I used to be a Republican...for thirty years. When I finally saw that Republicans stand for tax cuts for the rich and Democrats help ordinary work-a-day Americans I changed. I've never looked back. Two things happen during Republican administrations......tax cuts and more debt:

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Thanks for pointing this out. A Reagan Conservative is not a true Conservative.

A Reagan Conservative wants lower taxes and lower taxes and lower taxes and lower taxes. Of course they do usually want one more thing. They also want lower taxes. Damn the math!

I think Donald Trump is a Reagan Conservative. Spend like crazy, borrow like crazy, complain about spending, complain about borrowing and cut taxes drastically. That stuff is mathematically absurd. I have a story that will help you understand this.

 

[rdean]

Better than Trump's plan to triple it.

 

[presonorek]

( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

Once upon a time there was a kingdom far far away in a distant land. The rain was abundant and gave the people of the kingdom plenty of rain water to drink. The rain water was poison and making people insane. The king's advisers told the king to never drink the rain water even though the entire kingdom was drinking the rain water.

The king tried to rule the people with wisdom, justice and sound judgement. Because the people were insane chaos ensued. There was rioting. There was financial instability. There was violence and all kinds of untold chaos. The king decided to drink the rain water against the advice of his wise counselors. The king became insane.

Upon drinking the rain water the king began to make ridiculous, reckless and well.. insane decisions to rule the kingdom. Peace and prosperity began to spread throughout the kingdom. Everything remained hunky doorey as long as the king continued to drink the rain water. It was the most successful kingdom throughout the whole entire world even though everybody was insane.

 

[presonorek]

Better than Trump's plan to triple it.

Not so. Trump at least plans to triple it. Reagan did it on accident.

 

[Campbell]

Well, we really taught the North Vietnamese a lesson! Now that they are appropriately contrite, they are on our "most favored nation" trading list, and we are selling them arms!

We bombed North Vietnam so fucking hard their country was looking like a moonscape.

They crawled to the Paris Peace Treaty negotiations, and South Vietnam would still be free today IF THE DEMOCRATS HAD NOT CUT THEIR MILITARY FUNDING like the shit bags that they are.

You dumb bastard. The United States has active duty military troops stationed in 150 countries. What the hell do you think this is...another Roman empire?

Of course, you didn't bother to analyze that date, did you?

For instance, you didn't parse out the guards at our embassies, did you?

You didn't parse out the military aides, instructors, and liaisons, did you?

You didn't parse out the military personnel attending universities, war colleges, or providing guidance and assistance to the educational processes in those countries, did you?

You didn't parse out the military personnel providing humanitarian services to countries ravaged by disasters - both natural and man made, did you?

Simply, you have a mission --- and you won't let any facts get in your way. You ignore reality, you bend the truth, and sometimes, you even outright lie.

I used to be a Republican...for thirty years. When I finally saw that Republicans stand for tax cuts for the rich and Democrats help ordinary work-a-day Americans I changed. I've never looked back. Two things happen during Republican administrations......tax cuts and more debt:

..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

Horse Shit!!! I went to the bureau of the debt and collected those totals. Then I made my own chart. Disprove one total and then get back to me!!


..............................................Total U S Debt................................................

Figures Easily Verified....Taken From the Bureau of the Debt

US: $18,775,084,981,440 - Debt as of December 2015?

09/30/2014 $17,824,071,380,733.82

09/30/2013 $16,738,183,526,697.32

09/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

09/30/2011 $14,790,340,328,557.15

09/30/2010 $13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 (Bill Clinton Raised Taxes On The Rich early 1993)

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)(Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00



http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/3.jpg

 

[presonorek]

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

 

[Indeependent]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

 

[Spare_change]

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

That's what makes you look so silly .... numbers require analysis. Just throwing a bunch of numbers out there doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you lazy.

Do the damn analysis.

 

[presonorek]

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

That's what makes you look so silly .... numbers require analysis. Just throwing a bunch of numbers out there doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you lazy.

Do the damn analysis.

The numbers are pure. Why would I mess them up with a biased opinion?

 

[Spare_change]

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

That's what makes you look so silly .... numbers require analysis. Just throwing a bunch of numbers out there doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you lazy.

Do the damn analysis.

The numbers are pure. Why would I mess them up with a biased opinion?

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

That's what makes you look so silly .... numbers require analysis. Just throwing a bunch of numbers out there doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you lazy.

Do the damn analysis.

The numbers are pure. Why would I mess them up with a biased opinion?

the numbers are simplistic. You fail to recognize the impact of the numbers ... they're just big numbers to you.

Compare the tax cuts to out-year tax revenue. Compare the impact of debt increase on the GDP.

THEN, you'll have something worth talking about. Until then, they're just numbers.

 

[Campbell]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

Horse Shit! Republicans are the ones who want folks to work for starvation wages. Look at what Donald Trump as made off the backs of poor folks. My wife and I draw about $7,000 a month from our pensions and social security. I've always been middle class. In the late 1940's and early 1950's that was about $100 a week.

 

[Indeependent]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

Horse Shit! Republicans are the ones who want folks to work for starvation wages. Look at what Donald Trump as made off the backs of poor folks. My wife and I draw about $7,000 a month from our pensions and social security. I've always been middle class. In the late 1940's and early 1950's that was about $100 a week.

My post was regarding what the Democrats consider the Tiers of wealth.

 

[Campbell]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

Horse Shit! Republicans are the ones who want folks to work for starvation wages. Look at what Donald Trump as made off the backs of poor folks. My wife and I draw about $7,000 a month from our pensions and social security. I've always been middle class. In the late 1940's and early 1950's that was about $100 a week.

My post was regarding what the Democrats consider the Tiers of wealth.

I'm a Democrat. Every American town always has at least one section, usually gated, where the wealthy live and scratch one another's backs. Most of us are smart enough to recognize wealth.

 

[Moonglow]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

What is Congress doing about it? They are major players holding the purse strings...

 

[Indeependent]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

What is Congress doing about it? They are major players holding the purse strings...

Why should Congress do anything about the status quo?
Running for office costs a fortune and if your local Small Business Authority or some bigger companies want to support your campaign, you're going to do what they want.

 

[presonorek]

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

That's what makes you look so silly .... numbers require analysis. Just throwing a bunch of numbers out there doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you lazy.

Do the damn analysis.

The numbers are pure. Why would I mess them up with a biased opinion?

Same old story --- do a Google search -- get a pile of numbers, throw them out there, and pray like hell nobody looks at them.

I'll give you a simple exercise - compare the increase in GDP over 5 years after a tax cut to the national debt. Now, compare the increase in tax revenue in the five years after a tax cut with the loss in tax revenue in any five year period that does NOT include a tax cut.

See? There's a problem with figures ... they mean something. Throwing them out without analyzing them leaves you vulnerable to those who do the analysis.

You are dismissing numbers because they are so loud and so honest. Why do you do that? An opinion can be wrong. Numbers are never wrong.

That's what makes you look so silly .... numbers require analysis. Just throwing a bunch of numbers out there doesn't make you an expert, it just makes you lazy.

Do the damn analysis.

The numbers are pure. Why would I mess them up with a biased opinion?

the numbers are simplistic. You fail to recognize the impact of the numbers ... they're just big numbers to you.

Compare the tax cuts to out-year tax revenue. Compare the impact of debt increase on the GDP.

THEN, you'll have something worth talking about. Until then, they're just numbers.

You do that. I'd be wrong if I did it. You'd be right if you did it.

 

[Spare_change]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

Horse Shit! Republicans are the ones who want folks to work for starvation wages. Look at what Donald Trump as made off the backs of poor folks. My wife and I draw about $7,000 a month from our pensions and social security. I've always been middle class. In the late 1940's and early 1950's that was about $100 a week.

How uch did the "poor folks" make off Donald Trump?

 

[presonorek]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

Horse Shit! Republicans are the ones who want folks to work for starvation wages. Look at what Donald Trump as made off the backs of poor folks. My wife and I draw about $7,000 a month from our pensions and social security. I've always been middle class. In the late 1940's and early 1950's that was about $100 a week.

How uch did the "poor folks" make off Donald Trump?

Fourteen so far.

 

[Spare_change]

Hillary Clinton on the issues

All tried and failed.
No tariffs to diminish the profits gained by leaving America.
Job training but not forcing companies in any way whatever to hire Americans.
Raising taxes on the rich...so they'll leave the US even sooner.

Somebody please explain to me how all of a sudden Directors and CEOs are going to be MOVED by these programs to all of a sudden love Americans and make America prosper.

dude, she can't even define the middle class. I posted that yesterday. it's hilarious. tried and failed politics is clinton. and crying about 1% of the country instead of helping the 99%, that's her focus.

Democrats consider ~40K/year to be middle class.
90K/year is filthy rich.
150K and above is simply selfishness.

Horse Shit! Republicans are the ones who want folks to work for starvation wages. Look at what Donald Trump as made off the backs of poor folks. My wife and I draw about $7,000 a month from our pensions and social security. I've always been middle class. In the late 1940's and early 1950's that was about $100 a week.

How uch did the "poor folks" make off Donald Trump?

Fourteen so far.

What? What the hell is that supposed to mean?