Clinton on “trickle down” economics

Written By: - Date published: 12:34 pm, August 9th, 2016 - 37 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, us politics - Tags: , ,

Lefties have been saying it since forever, but it’s nice to have Hillary Clinton on record:

“Trickle down economic does not help our economy grow, it does not help the vast majority of Americans, but it does really help the most wealthy… we’re going to turn that upside down, we’re going to make the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes for a change”

trickle-down

37 comments on “Clinton on “trickle down” economics ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    9 August 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Good. I would say the left in the USA, needs to put pressure on h.r.c to keep her word once elected.

    A key here will be getting the greens over 5%, a green in the senate, with more democrats like those running on platforms similar to sanders. Otherwise, it will be business as usual once elected.

  2. Justice T. McGovern 2
    9 August 2016 at 1:22 pm

    She can say the words all she wants but she works for the assholes that live by the trickle down doctrine so she’ll never be able to turn it “upside down” without stepping on the toes of her Wall Street masters.

    • Henry Filth 2.1
      9 August 2016 at 3:11 pm

      It wouldn’t be the first time that a US President has done that.

      It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.

      I am prepared for disappointment

      • D'Esterre 2.1.1
        9 August 2016 at 5:00 pm

        Henry Filth: ” I am prepared for disappointment.”
        Me too. It’s all talk: she’ll do what her donors require. She proposes to put that old goat Bill in charge of economic policy, I read. How can that end well?
        I’m a fan of a president who’d call a halt to the cold war and the needling of China. That wouldn’t be her.
        Fingers crossed the voters of the US don’t elect her.

      • Jones 2.1.2
        9 August 2016 at 7:38 pm

        “I am prepared for disappointment”. Me too. I just can’t see it happening. Hillary’s just saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected. Empty words in the end.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    9 August 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Geeezus do we really have to ratchet lefty gullibility up to 110%.

    On a more serious note, just remember that Bill Clinton repealed Glass Stiegal in exchange for massive campaign contributions from the financial sector.

    And these people still pay in big to the Clinton Foundation.

  4. Cynicaljester 4
    9 August 2016 at 2:36 pm

    Saying nice things, but it’s what brought and paid for politicians always say, remember Obama with hope and change and how he believed in a public health option but didn’t fight for it when the time came and even offered to cut social security before the Republicans even asked.

    If Hillary gets elected she’ll continue the same old politics of the last 36 years, more children will be bombed, more trickle down, more trade deals the tppa will be signed by lunch time.

  5. Garibaldi 5
    9 August 2016 at 2:39 pm

    What about Hillary’s trickle down of weapons to Isis ? Apparently Wikileaks about to release some more E-mails.

  6. Bill 6
    9 August 2016 at 3:44 pm

    Define “fair share”.

    Call me cynical, but for a politician of Hillary’s hue, “fair” is going to amount to wee pile of peanuts…just whatever the most wealthy reckon “fair” to be.

    Actually, maybe the image should be reworded to read –

    “And then I said….

    we’re going to make the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes for a change”

  7. One Two 7
    9 August 2016 at 4:09 pm

    Some still live in a world of make believe where the words of exposed pathological liars are given oxygen

    It benefits the e*tablishment only and signals an agenda in firmly in play here

    Comments in response are not as gullible, which is encouraging

    Perhaps the article is a wind up

  8. One Two 8
    9 August 2016 at 4:36 pm

    I propose your question should be to whomever posted the article, and to the Clinton fan club which so ironically exists on ‘a lefty site’

    • red-blooded 8.1
      10 August 2016 at 7:04 am

      Hey, there’s plenty of criticism of Clinton on this site. This post highlights a statement that helps to position her and can be used to hold her to account. I don’t think anyone here thinks she’s going to really shake things up much. However, she won’t be an absolute disaster for her country or for the wider world. That’s what’s entailed in the alternative choice.

      • Richard McGrath 8.1.1
        11 August 2016 at 5:13 pm

        That’s Clinton’s view today. All her statements are tailored to the audience whose votes she is trying to buy, even if she contradicts herself.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2
      10 August 2016 at 7:43 am

      Yawn. So nothing. No ideas, just the idle repetition of that which is known to everyone here. Clinton can be everything you imagine she is and beyond that you don’t have the first clue.

      You appear to think that parroting slogans leaves you in a position to label and criticise.

      Yap yap little dog.

  9. Matthew Whitehead 9
    9 August 2016 at 7:33 pm

    I’ll believe it if I see her actually avoid trickle-down. Clinton has been about as right-wing as you can get as a Democrat and I don’t see her changing, especially after picking Kaine as her VP.

    • DS 9.1
      9 August 2016 at 9:13 pm

      Hillary voted with Bernie 93% of the time.

    • Phil 9.2
      10 August 2016 at 9:42 am

      Clinton has been about as right-wing as you can get as a Democrat

      That statement’s pretty close to earning a ‘pants on fire’ rating from Politifact.

      http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

      Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members — he was not more liberal than Clinton.

      Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 9.2.1
        10 August 2016 at 9:58 am

        Liberal on social policies, it is true.

        But economically and in foreign policy?? Much less sure.

        • Matthew Whitehead 9.2.1.1
          10 August 2016 at 3:27 pm

          Thank you. Clinton is a Liberal in the same sense that John Key in a Liberal- they both vote for “left-wing” liberal social policies when it earns them points, and they both have a right-wing economic agenda.

          Being able to distinguish between the liberal/conservative and left/right axes of political discussion is like, 101 level stuff.

          • Phil 9.2.1.1.1
            10 August 2016 at 4:04 pm

            Being able to distinguish between the liberal/conservative and left/right axes of political discussion is like, 101 level stuff.

            If only you had made yourself clearer before shooting from the hip and being, at least, half wrong?

            • Matthew Whitehead 9.2.1.1.1.1
              10 August 2016 at 4:56 pm

              She’s absolutely a classical liberal in terms of her political orientation, and that’s what Americans mean when they say the word “liberal,” because there’s almost no real left wing in US politics. In context it seemed pretty damn clear that this wasn’t a discussion of liberals versus conservatives as I was talking about how I was skeptical she didn’t believe in trickle-down economics, so no, I was neither “unclear” nor “half-wrong” just because you assumed that “conservative” automatically follows from right-wing.

              And no, I wasn’t “shooting from the hip.” Hillary is about as far to the right as a Democrat can get while still running for President. She has a lot of nominally progressive commitments in her platform (as one would expect having been almost beaten by the most progressive candidate in modern history in a time when there is a real political move towards populism in the US) but her actual record generally shows that most of the “left-wing” things she does have a significant correlation with either business interests or party donors, with a few notable exceptions like her efforts on health care that remind us that as manufactured as she looks, she is actually something of a human being and a leader who will occasionally do things because they’re right.

              She’s not a nightmare candidate but she’s nothing to be particularly enthusiastic about either, it’s essentially the “Not Trump 2016” campaign at this point.

              • DS …
                11 August 2016 at 5:36 pm

                Hillary is so “right wing” she nearly torpedoed her husband’s first term by demanding universal health care for Americans.

                In any case, Hillary in 2016 is well to the left of where she was in 2008, and indeed is running (slightly) to the left of Obama. For an actual centre-right Democrat, see the likes of Joe Manchin, or (formerly) the likes of Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, et cetera. Hillary is an unremarkable mainstream Democrat.

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  12 August 2016 at 8:12 am

                  That’s because everyone is counting what she promised to do rather than what she’s actually done in the past, DS, which is a rather amateurish mistake in my view. Healthcare is basically the only place where she’s genuinely left-wing, and if you look at her policies on healthcare, she’s actually in the camp that opposed a single-payer healthcare system and stopped it from even being considered, so she’s not exactly that far left on healthcare, either, as she wants Americans to be forced to pay for private insurance, which is ludicrously pro-corporate.

                  • DS …
                    12 August 2016 at 12:07 pm

                    If we’re talking what Hillary “has done,” well, she (and Bill) both campaigned for George McGovern in 1972. Which is pretty damn left-wing.

                    As for the health insurance mandate, the entire purpose of it (with Federal subsidies) is to ensure everyone has access to health-care. Simple. Single-payer is not politically viable in the US; as it was, Obamacare (the greatest single progressive reform in the US since the 1960s) only barely passed against universal Republican opposition.

                    You have provided absolutely zero evidence that Hillary is more right-wing than any other Democrat (e,g. Obama, Kerry, Gore), and when people have pointed out the falsehood of your claims, you have resorted to saying it doesn’t count. OK – *why* is Hillary apparently so right-wing?

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      12 August 2016 at 2:08 pm

                      Campaigning for someone is nice, but it’s not really the same as her record in government.

                      The mandate is a poor way to ensure access to healthcare. What it does is compel people to buy a product. If you want to ensure access to something you remove barriers- ie. you make it free and easy to access. To be fair the Affordable Care Act did expand medicaid, so it made it free to more people than before, at least until the Supreme Court let conservative states opt out, but that’s not particularly relevant. The fact that Hillary actively opposed removing barriers to entry and supported requiring people to buy insurance tells you a lot about how corporate her thinking on politics actually is.

                      As for why Hillary is right-wing, firstly, I’ll give you an independant opinion that agrees- the political compass. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

                      Clinton is weak on wall street reform, soft on bankers, supports minor conservative social movements, (labelling black people as super-predators, wanting to ban violent video games, etc…) she accepts donations and kickbacks from several corrupt industries, most notably private prisons, wants to limit voting rights reform merely to amending the Citizens’ United decision out of law, was pro-Keystone XL pipeline until she ran for president, was pro-TPP until she ran for president, supports weaksauce compromises when she could fight for actual left-wing alternatives, thinks Wall Street regulation can be left at Dodd Frank, proposed the existing powers on student debt relief as adequate measures rather than push for anything new to solve that crisis, and is VERY hawkish, refusing even in principle to rule out going to war.

                      Her political actions would fit her well within the liberal wing of the National Party over here, with Key and English, as most of the things she does that are considered left-wing in the USA would align her well with someone like Nikki Kaye.

                    • DS …
                      12 August 2016 at 10:17 pm

                      You are ignoring the purpose of the mandate: to ensure that all Americans have health coverage, regardless of wealth or previously existing conditions (both of which had previously been obstacles, since insurance companies had been blocking such people). Expanding the insurance pool has the effect of lowering the cost per person – in essence, an attempt to replicate universal health care via an insurance model. It isn’t perfect, of course, but as an incremental change that has helped millions of Americans, it is a sterling achievement.

                      You are also comparing Clinton to New Zealand politicians. That is not what you were saying earlier, and not what I asked you to demonstrate, namely that Hillary is the most right-wing Democrat who could run for President. I’m not interested in where she stands on the New Zealand political spectrum – I want you to show me that Clinton is to the Right of Obama, Kerry, and Gore: the last three Democratic nominees. I want you to demonstrate that Hillary is right-wing as understood within the US Democratic Party.

        • Phil 9.2.1.2
          10 August 2016 at 4:01 pm

          *shrugs*

          HRC’s voting record for a bunch of ‘economic’ issues, during her time in the senate, shows someone that looks like a straight-down-the-line Democrat.

          http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

          • Matthew Whitehead 9.2.1.2.1
            12 August 2016 at 8:18 am

            Again, that site doesn’t track her record, it tracks her policy positions as well. (And it over-credits her for a lot of half measures that stopped real reform being done. Would you credit that National Party for slowing down the housing crisis? Or would you say they haven’t gone far enough? Hillary is VERY vulnerable to those sorts of criticism on economic policy, especially on holding corporations and financial services accountable) If you look purely at her record, while there are candidates further to the right of her, she’s definitely one of the right-most Democrats who’s ever had a shot at the presidency.

  10. vto 10
    10 August 2016 at 7:14 am

    “Lefties have been saying it since forever”

    Always follow the hippies

  11. save nz 11
    10 August 2016 at 9:53 am

    Nice words, but I have difficultly believing them – note there does not seem to be any policy action with the words to back it up.

  12. mosa 12
    10 August 2016 at 5:51 pm

    Has she run this rapid conversion to the trickle down and still going down past the Koch brothers and the Wall st support group ?

  13. Richard McGrath 13
    11 August 2016 at 5:17 pm

    I’m not sure you’ll find the “trickle down theory” has any place in Austrian economics, it’s a straw man invented by the left.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.