George is in town on Thursday

Do you want to meet if schedule work out? Also, at some point, perhaps Thursday if convenient, I would like to speak with you separately, important, timely but certainly not urgent. I would make myself available at your convenience. Let me know. Best, Michael.

Soros, of course understands economics. In my opinion, his despicable political actions are not based on what he knows to be true--rather a lifelong hatred of Western civilization, and the moral values that underpin it. I do not believe that his protege, Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton, as evil as she has been, fully understands what her puppet master is all about.

A Very Confused Candidate

In the Presidential Debate, last night (the 19th of October), Mrs. Clinton explained her approach to job creation. The recital sounded rehearsed & sloganized; but it demonstrated something very differfent than what she obviously intended. It would be far better described as a path to economic stagnation, than a path to economic progress!

That a woman who has been politically active, all her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bain of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.

Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government woujld rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she tottally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.

To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.

Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?

The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.

Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.

We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.

This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.

William Flax

[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]

“Clinton claimed that a Clinton government would rebuild the middle class...”

Yes, I caught that too.
When Democrats say they’ll “create jobs,” what they mean is, they’ll create more and bigger gubbermint “programs” requiring more bureaucrats-—case workers, social workers, food stamp workers, data entry clerks, prison guards, wardens, administrators.

IOW, state workers whose paychecks, perks, and pensions are paid by the taxpayers, in turn necessitating more tax increases.

In the very depressed economy where I live, the jobs are mostly minimum wage positions in retail or fast food. (But Hillary wants to make minwage $15 per hour-—putting even these businesses out of business.)

The only way to make “higher” wages is to work for “the state.”
But even then, the “higher” paying jobs are around $15-30k.
So now you can have this new “middle class” wage and benefit package, and still qualify for tax-subsidized housing.

America—what a country! Looking more and more like Stalin’s Russia.

The taxpayers are groaning under the burden. And Hildebeast wants more of the same.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.