CDZ The Macroeconomic Consequences of Secretary Clinton’s Economic Policies

[320 Years of History]

The Macroeconomic Consequences of Secretary Clinton’s Economic Policies

You may recall some time back I posted this:

• The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr. Trump’s Economic Policies

 

[B. Kidd]

Hill-Beasts' campaign still has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. If, and when that happens, I'll get back to ya'.......

 

[OldLady]

So what's the bottom line? What's a macro economy?

 

[OldLady]

Ten sentences or less, please, without a bunch of big words.

 

[The Great Goose]

 

[B. Kidd]

Credit rating companies are largely politically biased. I only consider one credit rating company, and it ain't Moody's.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hill-Beasts' campaign still has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. If, and when that happens, I'll get back to ya'.......

What, like these specific details and proposed revisions to existing policy/tax provisions?

• The “Buffet rule,” which imposes a 30% minimum tax on taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $1 million;
• A 4% surcharge on adjusted gross income over $5 million;
• A 28% limit on the tax value of specified deductions (excluding charitable giving);
• Tax on carried interest at the rate on ordinary income;
• An estate tax with a top tax rate of 45% and a tax threshold on estates of $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples) that is not indexed to inflation;
• A $1 million limit on the lifetime gift tax exemption;
• Limit corporate inversions by increasing the threshold for foreign ownership from 20% to 50% of the combined company shares, deter earnings stripping through limits on interest deductions for U.S. affiliates of multinational companies, and imposing an “exit tax” on earnings that have not been repatriated;
  
• Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization;
  
• No Trans-Pacific Partnership;
  
• Increase the federal wage floor from its $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour by the end of her presidential term, and indexed to increase with consumer price inflation after that.

Perhaps, however, the details provided already, though sufficient for Moody's to review and analyze so as to produce the documents noted in the OP (for both Mrs. Clinton and Trump), are insufficient for you because there's so much missing or left vague/ambiguous that you can credibly dismiss their analysis? If so, I can't wait to see your letter to Moody's explaining to them just what clods they are for thinking they could conduct any form of preliminary analysis given what we already know.

Of course, I've been smugly sarcastic in the preceding paragraph. I'd like greater levels of detail too, but for now, what's been shared by both candidates is enough to make "heads or tails" of what we have so that going forward we can evaluate the nature and extent of changes that may be proposed. At some point, one has to say, "Okay...I'll evaluate the information I have as best as can be done and see what falls out," so that one has a baseline from which to move forward. Yes, of course, one can wait for additional detail. That detail may come later during the campaign. However, it also may not come until Congress passes legislation; well, that's far too late. The goal, for now, is to get a sense of the pros and cons of a candidates' economic proposals, before one votes for one or the other of them, or neither of them. Moody's is an impartial evaluator, so their analysis is a great place to start if one isn't able or willing to perform the original empirical analysis oneself.

 

[320 Years of History]

I only consider one credit rating company, and it ain't Moody's.

Well has that one published a comprehensive analysis? If so, by all means share it.

 

[B. Kidd]

Hill-Beasts' campaign still has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. If, and when that happens, I'll get back to ya'.......

What, like these specific details and proposed revisions to existing policy/tax provisions?

• The “Buffet rule,” which imposes a 30% minimum tax on taxpayers with adjusted gross income above $1 million;
• A 4% surcharge on adjusted gross income over $5 million;
• A 28% limit on the tax value of specified deductions (excluding charitable giving);
• Tax on carried interest at the rate on ordinary income;
• An estate tax with a top tax rate of 45% and a tax threshold on estates of $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples) that is not indexed to inflation;
• A $1 million limit on the lifetime gift tax exemption;
• Limit corporate inversions by increasing the threshold for foreign ownership from 20% to 50% of the combined company shares, deter earnings stripping through limits on interest deductions for U.S. affiliates of multinational companies, and imposing an “exit tax” on earnings that have not been repatriated;
  
• Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization;
  
• No Trans-Pacific Partnership;
  
• Increase the federal wage floor from its $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour by the end of her presidential term, and indexed to increase with consumer price inflation after that.

Perhaps, however, the details provided already, though sufficient for Moody's to review and analyze so as to produce the documents noted in the OP (for both Mrs. Clinton and Trump), are insufficient for you because there's so much missing or left vague/ambiguous that you can credibly dismiss their analysis? If so, I can't wait to see your letter to Moody's explaining to them just what clods they are for thinking they could conduct any form of preliminary analysis given what we already know.

Of course, I've been smugly sarcastic in the preceding paragraph. I'd like greater levels of detail too, but for now, what's been shared by both candidates is enough to make "heads or tails" of what we have so that going forward we can evaluate the nature and extent of changes that may be proposed. At some point, one has to say, "Okay...I'll evaluate the information I have as best as can be done and see what falls out," so that one has a baseline from which to move forward. Yes, of course, one can wait for additional detail. That detail may come later during the campaign. However, it also may not come until Congress passes legislation; well, that's far too late. The goal, for now, is to get a sense of the pros and cons of a candidates' economic proposals, before one votes for one or the other of them, or neither of them. Moody's is an impartial evaluator, so their analysis is a great place to start if one isn't able or willing to perform the original empirical analysis oneself.

You've been told that Moody's is impartial. No need to waste my time discussing. Thanks, anyways.

 

[B. Kidd]

I only consider one credit rating company, and it ain't Moody's.

Well has that one published a comprehensive analysis? If so, by all means share it.

Just checked............they haven't published one yet.

 

[320 Years of History]

You've been told that Moody's is impartial. No need to waste my time discussing. Thanks, anyways.

Off topic:
NP...

I can tell you think Moody's Analytics and Moody's Investors Service are the same things.

• Independent Model Validation & Model Governance

I think you and I ending our discourse here is a good idea. TY for suggesting it. I accept if you do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Start taking it a piece at a time:

Here is a paragraph:

Those who would benefit most from Sec
-
retary Clinton’s economic proposals would
be low- and middle-income households.
Their tax bill is the same as it is today, but
they are the beneficiaries of increased gov
-
ernment assistance and a larger economy.
6
High-income households pay much more in
taxes under Secretary Clinton’s policies.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Here is another....

Secretary Clinton’s economic proposals
will result in a modest increase in the federal
government’s budget
deficits. If not for her
proposal to eliminate
the sequester—
across-the-board cuts
to defense and non
-
defense discretionary
spending that are cur
-
rently slated to start
back up in 2018—her
policies would be
nearly deficit neutra

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am O.K with raising taxes on the wealthy...if there are spending cuts.

We need to balance the budget.

We don't need the federal government spending more money.

My above post quotes "modest" increases. Why is it that these people won't give us the actual numbers they are projecting ?

 

[320 Years of History]

I am O.K with raising taxes on the wealthy...if there are spending cuts.

Out of curiosity:

• If you are wealthy, I understand the remark for clearly there's a personal impact.
• If you aren't wealthy, why do you care about whether tax increases on the wealthy are accompanied by spending cuts? I understand you may wonder why I ask that question. Well, I ask it because:
  • If you want revenue neutrality, that can be achieved regardless of on whom tax/fee/tariff increases and decreases fall -- wealthy, not wealthy, everyone, some people, individuals, corporations, etc.
  • If you just want spending cuts, that too can be accomplished without regard to whether one increases taxes on the wealthy.

 

[yiostheoy]

I doubt that Hillary will have the same success as BHO did raising taxes on the rich.

And it will be a hard sell for her to get the GOP to agree to raising taxes on abusive multinational corporations either.

I think her proposals are fine however she would need complete DEM control of government to implement them all.

So other than talking points I doubt she will get anything legislated.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think her proposals are fine however she would need complete DEM control of government to implement them all.

Yes, well, the state in which we find ourselves these days is one whereby whoever is President needs their own party to hold majorities in both Congressional houses to implement their initiatives.

 

[Dekster]

I doubt that Hillary will have the same success as BHO did raising taxes on the rich.

And it will be a hard sell for her to get the GOP to agree to raising taxes on abusive multinational corporations either.

I think her proposals are fine however she would need complete DEM control of government to implement them all.

So other than talking points I doubt she will get anything legislated.

What constitutes "abusive"?

 

[Dekster]

I think her proposals are fine however she would need complete DEM control of government to implement them all.

Yes, well, the state in which we find ourselves these days is one whereby whoever is President needs their own party to hold majorities in both Congressional houses to implement their initiatives.

Then why does Hillary brag about working with every republican member of the Senate on legislation? More importantly, why would someone take any of her proposals seriously when she brags about her ability to compromise with people like Ted Cruz?

 

[320 Years of History]

Then why does Hillary brag about working with every republican member of the Senate on legislation?

I'd hardly call it bragging; that term overstates the nature of her remarks, IMO. I would call her remarks attestations of willingness.

As for why she makes those attestations, the reason is simple: she's got a long standing record of having done so effectively. She also has numerous plaudits from folks whom one would ostensibly consider her political rivals.

• Condoleezza Rice
  • “No, look, it’s a unique situation. I think we all see that it’s unique. But my successor, Hillary Clinton, is an extremely talented woman. She is a woman of integrity. She believes in this country deeply. We’ve already had a couple of conversations. I know her from the time she brought her freshman daughter to Stanford for the first time when I was Provost. And she’s going to do this very well.” [Meet the Press, 12/21/08]
    
    
  • “Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said her successor, Hillary Clinton, has done a ‘fine’ job. It’s the overall strategy of the Obama administration, Rice said, that has led the U.S. astray. ‘I think she’s done a fine job. The problem isn’t Hilary Clinton, who’s great,’ Rice told members of Ohio’s delegation to the Republican National Convention.” [NBCnews.com, 8/12/13]
• Jeb Bush
  • “Former Secretary Clinton has dedicated her life to serving and engaging people across the world in democracy,’ Bush said. ‘These efforts as a citizen, an activist, and a leader have earned Secretary Clinton this year’s Liberty Medal.'” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/28/13; Constitution Center press release, 6/27/13]
• Tomas Pickering (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under Pres. George H. W. Bush)
  
  • “We thought that she conducted her meetings and activities responsibly and well.” According to Reuters, “But Clinton aides and a retired senior U.S. diplomat who led a review of the Benghazi events say the new efforts are little more than political theater. Thomas Pickering, who chaired the State Department’s official inquiry, said his panel concluded Clinton’s performance was appropriate: ‘We did look at her role. We thought that she conducted her meetings and activities responsibly and well.’” [Reuters, 2/11/14]
• Jim DeMint
  • “I am optimistic and hopeful about your role as secretary of State. And despite the news accounts that say that I’m the one that’s going to ask you the hard questions about potential conflicts of interest, I have no questions about your integrity.” [Demint remarks, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, 1/13/09]
    
  • "A couple of points. First, I want to thank you for your leadership in Honduras. As you know, that was a situation that appeared to be moving out of control, and I think you and your Department have got it on a good track, trying to restore relationships within and around Honduras. I get very good reports there from what the State Department’s doing.” [“Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,” 2/24/10]
• Lindsay Graham
  • "‘I think she’s represented our nation well,’ Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, who as a member of the House served as one of 13 managers in the 1998 impeachment trial of Clinton’s husband, told me in an interview in his Senate office. ‘She is extremely well respected throughout the world, handles herself in a very classy way and has a work ethic second to none.’” [New York Times, 7/1/12]
    
  • The following exchange occurred on Fox News: KASICH: “Bay — Bay, you’ve got — you got John McCain who says, and I quote, ‘I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.’ Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, says, ‘She’s smart, prepared, serious.’ John Warner, sort of the dean of the United States Senate, Republican, conservative, says she has a remarkable core of inner strength. These are people who have worked with her for seven years.” [Fox News, 5/28/07]
  • “Graham quipped that his relationship with Clinton is a good example of that. ‘We have become, actually, good friends. And that was a surprise to both of us,’ he said. But joking aside, he said failing to cooperate would have dire consequences. He told the audience that if the Hillary Clintons and Lindsey Grahams of the world can’t work together, America’s best days are over.” [Voice of America, 2/3/07]
    
  • “Over the last few years, Sens. Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton have become a Capitol Hill odd couple, working across party lines on issues ranging from their mutual support for invading Iraq to their shared concern over vanishing manufacturing jobs and inadequate health care for military reservists… Graham said the two of them often come at problems from different directions, but share an interest in important policy issues. ‘Certainly, she’s a national figure, and to share the stage with her – I consider that a compliment,’ he said. ‘We’ll probably have totally different agendas that we think are best for the country, but the point is to speak boldly about problems that require bipartisanship and solutions that are essential to us surviving as a country in the 21st century.’” [The State, 1/28/07]
• John McCain
  • “First of all, Secretary Clinton is admired and respected around the world. She and I have been friends for many years. We used to travel together…. So, I have — I admire the fact that she is admired throughout the world and a very effective secretary of state.
    
  • “I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a good president," Mr. McCain said. "I happen to be a Republican and would support, obviously, a Republican nominee, but I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.” [The Washington Times, 2/21/05]
• Alan Simpson
  • "We were invited to the White House. I don’t remember what it was; it wasn’t a large group, maybe 50, 40. I watched Hillary as she began to visit with Ann. Hillary never turns her head when she’s talking to someone. She is absolutely riveted. She doesn’t look around like, ‘Oh, hi there Tilly; how are you?’—or divert her attention from the person she’s talking to. That’s a gift. You have to have that in politics. There were people around—it was adulation: ‘We want to talk to Hillary.’ She must have spent about 15 or 20 minutes with Ann on mental health issues. . . Anyway, I thought that was fascinating.’” [Bloomberg, 11/15/14]
• George Voinovich
  • “Last week, I was in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Serbia with Senator Shaheen. And I know you’re focused on Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan, but probably more than maybe some other Secretary of State, I know that you’re interested in that region. We have spent a lot of time, a lot of money, and I’m concerned that if we don’t pay attention to it, all of the progress that we have made may be for naught.” [Ohio Sen. George Voinovich remarks, Senate testimony, 2/24/10]

Now, has she done tons and tons of bipartisan collaboration? No, but he she has done it and knows how to do it effectively when she needs to and she's clearly demonstrated a willingness to do it. According to GovTrack, as Senator, Mrs. Clinton collaborated with GOP Senators to co-sponsor 56 bills. Mrs. Clinton served with 70 Republican senators over eight years, so that means that 14 of them did not sponsor any of her bills.

More importantly, why would someone take any of her proposals seriously when she brags about her ability to compromise with people like Ted Cruz?

??? Ted Cruz is one of the most intransigent folks in the Senate. I'm hard pressed to think of few humans whom I've ever met or heard of who is more a "my way or the highway" sort of person. If anyone can get that man to compromise enough to get something, even a meager something, passed, they are incredibly good a collaborating to achieve a positive outcome.