Posted on 10/22/2016 10:12:24 AM PDT by Son House
CLINTON: So what I am proposing is that we invest from the middle out and the ground up, not the top down.
CLINTON: We’ll have what economists call middle-out growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Why are there no fact-checks? We just got to take Clinton's word because she said it? How many reporters are reporting on the same topic? No one gets out of the box to put the American People first?
Middle-out is just another liberal Utopia. Economist may be able to observe middle-out growth in an economy after it happens, but to say you can grow an economy from the middle-out is experimental and never been proven. The middle class first need jobs to be middle class.
We need massive economic growth. Simply put, the more you take from the private sector the smaller the private sector. Doesn't matter if your Clinton or Obama. Government had record year-over-year revenues to the Treasury with lower rates, and that can be proven. And the best costumer for a small business is a big business. What small business wouldn't want an order from big business?
I suppose I should keep my response short, but I'm afraid after this post middle-out economics won't be discussed before the election. And look at unemployment number this Democrat President gets, as much as they want the unemployment number to reflect a great economy, it's been devastating for many, too many.
I've waited all week for an article, but none really, a couple of old ones from Obama's campaign rhetoric days. So I've had to post debate transcript instead. Clinton wants to impose a Nationalize Utopian economic growth strategy that's never been proven to work and not one report in the news.
What economist say's middle-out growth works? The same economist that says government stimulus will cause more economic growth? When are the media going to challenge any economist to discuss if middle-out growth is an observation or a growth strategy?
You can't predict economic growth just because tax code is more favorable to people in middle income situations. What if, as is now happening, the middle class just keeps getting smaller? How can any Democrat be ahead when their economic ideas are just experimental and never proven to work? Can't Republicans at least win that argument? Oh, the press wouldn't report it if they did...
maybe she’s subconsciously quoting her own doctors
It is so hard now to win any argument which appeals to logic or sense or refers to reality in any way. It is all about the “feels” now. Thank you for bringing this to attention. It bears a lot of scrutiny and shame on the so-called analysts for not doing so.
CLINTON: So what I am proposing is that we invest from the middle out and the ground up, not the top down.
One word. Stimulous. That’s what she’s talking about. After all, it worked so well for Obama.
Massive middle-out growth? Has she been looking in a mirror?
November 20, 2012
‘Middle-out’ economics trumped ‘trickle-down’ on Nov. 6 - Now policies should reflect that
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/268955-middle-out-economics-trumped-trickle-down-on-nov-6-now-polices-should-reflect-that
And how many times did they say tax-cut and they only meant credits? Many. Seems someone else commented about the duplicity of Clinton also using debt and deficit interchangeably.
One second thought, Clinton probably doesn’t know the difference between debt and deficit, as many other Democrats too, they have no real interest in economics, only poll-tested rhetoric.
“And how many times did they say tax-cut and they only meant credits? Many. Seems someone else commented about the duplicity of Clinton also using debt and deficit interchangeably.”
You are correct in all your comments in this thread.
It’s why I despair of political discussions, and why I come to FR for a breath of logical air.
Politicians claim that revoking any tax will “cost the government” so much money “and will therefore lead to a deficit.” Even if the tax is wrong, the government is wrong, and the budget is wrong.
More to your point, anyone who conflates the deficit with the debt, or illegal immigration with legal immigration, should be called out, but when are they, and where, other than on FR and a few conservative columnists — but not journalists?
It’s FRustrating.
>>Simply put, the more you take from the private sector the smaller the private sector
The private sector is what Marx calls the Petit Bourgeoisie, the class traitors who labor yet support capitalism. When Hillary talks of building the middle out, no one should think that it does anything but destroy the private sector middle class. Now, the public sector middle class will thrive under her plan.
“Middle Out” is just lefty jargon pretending to be policy. Very little has been written about it since 2012, and even less done. Yet in 2012 it was heralded as the great new thing that Obama would save us with. So after 8 years of middle class decay under Obama, Hillary thinks more of the same will yield different results?
And I can’t ever recall Bernie Sanders ever saying middle-out economy. Clinton is only using this because it polls nice.
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.