Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:He could've... and did pass anything he wanted for the first two years during the economic downturn.

He choose a fascist "solution" to takeover our healthcare system... another entitlement.


And we got the ARRA and the ACA.  Win win.  But then when the majority of Americans voted for democrats in the 2010 election, republicans took the house anyways due to district gerrymandering.  

And the ACA is not a takeover of the the healthcare system.  Not to anyone who understands what the word 'takeover' means.  Further the ACA has been a success.  The number of uninsured americans has plummeted, and the growth of health care costs has slowed and in some cases even decreased.

Go ahead and queue up the college freshmen libertarian one-liner "Regulation is effective control".  Because it's not as if you have anything original or intelligent to say in the realm of politics.  Your contributions to this forum are comparable to those of a child eavesdropping on the grown-ups table.

Your Darwin Avatar suits you....

http://starstoshame.blogspot.com/2012/02/charles-darwin-sexist-racist-lunatic.html

Charles Darwin: Sexist, Racist, & Lunatic

He held white, European men higher than all the other races or sexes. He did not think that people of color had any intelligence and civilization.  He also thought women were inferior and beneath men.  Not only was he racist, but also sexist.  He had no right or proof to say that about anyone. It is amazing to me how many people respect him and follow his beliefs when he believed in things like that.  


In reality, you are a racist homophobic paranoid lunatic.  No joking there. That really is you in reality.  You really are that guy.

Say what you want about my avatar, at least I'm not a paranoid racist homophobic who can't quite wrap his head around the concept of vaccinations.

I am all for voluntary vaccinations FACT is you are welcome to mine so you can have double if you want..I am a generous sort.


My avatar is a robotic cop he could care less what color or gender you are...

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy' - Page 2 Productivity+and+wages

This chart is for historical context.

**********

Does this mean anything to anyone here?

Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy' - Page 2 Wascur_cp12

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/02/16/2119138/crush-the-financial-sector-end-the-great-stagnation/

Guest


Guest
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/12/1376828/-Left-flank-critique-of-Hillary-Clinton-On-Wall-Street-ties

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:How will she coerce big business into profit sharing while raising taxes on those with the most to lose in that same type of program?

Tax incentives.

gatorfan wrote:What is the root cause of stagnant wages? Is it because corporation are holding onto too much cash because of so many global problems? Or is it because work opportunities are so fragile that workers are willing to shut up and work for less?

What is her plan?

Work opportunities are fragile?  I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but job openings are currently sitting at a 15 year high.

Yes, there are millions of jobs going vacant. Millions of citizens have learned that they can live better without a job than working. By the time they receive all their benefits, forever, they are happy to stay home, lay on the couch and watch their big plasma TV.

Markle

Markle
From my good friend, though uninformed BoardsofFL.

The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives. This seems reasonable.


The uninformed...or intentionally ignoring facts, my Progressive good friends pretend that every one of those companies already have profit sharing.

It is called, purchasing stock where you work.

Profits with corporations are shared with the STOCKHOLDRS.

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?


You're asking me this within a thread titled "Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'.   In the first post, I point out what I think is the key element of that plan:  A corporate profit sharing program driven by tax incentives.  I also link you to an article that discusses the plan.  Then there is Google.  

What am I missing here?

BRILLIANT! You state that Hillary wants to take money from tax payers, people working in those companies and millions of others, to give MORE money to corporations to encourage companies to share their profits with their employees RATHER than their stockholders.

Excuse me, my impression of America and our great Constitution was that it is a GOOD thing to earn a profit. When did that change and why does someone else, other than the market place, get to decide what is the RIGHT amount of profit?

How does a corporation continue to exist if the profits do not go to the shareholders?

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:From my good friend, though uninformed BoardsofFL.  

The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.


The uninformed...or intentionally ignoring facts, my Progressive good friends pretend that every one of those companies already have profit sharing.

It is called, purchasing stock where you work.

Profits with corporations are shared with the STOCKHOLDRS.



That's not the type of profit sharing that is being discussed here. May I suggest some remedial research on the subject?


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?


You're asking me this within a thread titled "Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'.   In the first post, I point out what I think is the key element of that plan:  A corporate profit sharing program driven by tax incentives.  I also link you to an article that discusses the plan.  Then there is Google.  

What am I missing here?

BRILLIANT!  You state that Hillary wants to take money from tax payers, people working in those companies and millions of others, to give MORE money to corporations to encourage companies to share their profits with their employees RATHER than their stockholders.


'Tax incentives' doesn't mean what you think it means. They would essentially take less from corporations that adopt a corporate profit sharing policy aimed at boosting wages.


Markle wrote:How does a corporation continue to exist if the profits do not go to the shareholders?


The same way that corporations that currently have profit sharing policies exist. What, are you under the impression that corporate profit sharing is a brand new concept invented by Hillary Clinton? Hahahahaha.


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
Regardless of what one might think of Hillary's plans/goals ... I'd like to know how she thinks she's going to get them past a probable Republican dominated Congress filled with Democrats who are also bought & sold by corporate lobbyists?

So, what do I think of her remarks ..... well, it's just a bunch of empty populist rhetoric so far as I can tell.

boards of FL

boards of FL
EmeraldGhost wrote:Regardless of what one might think of Hillary's plans/goals ... I'd like to know how she thinks she's going to get them past a probable Republican dominated Congress filled with Democrats who are also bought & sold by corporate lobbyists?

So, what do I think of her remarks ..... well, it's just a bunch of empty populist rhetoric so far as I can tell.


You're essentially saying "As good or bad as this policy may be, it's all bullshit because it won't pass due to republicans."

You vote for republicans, correct?  You see, that's sorta the problem here. If you were an informed voter, you would vote based on policy.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, you're a low information voter and you can't name any specific policy that you support.



Last edited by boards of FL on 7/15/2015, 1:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
boards of FL wrote:
You're essentially saying "As good or bad as this policy may be, it's all bullshit because it won't pass due to republicans."

You are most correct. Yup ... it is all bullshit ... for that very reason.

I have no problem calling out bullshit from whatever end of the political spectrum the smell is coming from.

boards of FL wrote:
You vote for republicans, correct?  You see, that's sorta the problem here.

I voted for Gary Johnson last time around .... on principle ... if you must know. Not that I agreed with everything he stands for either. Doubtful he could have gotten a lot of his agenda passed either ... but he sure could have done a lot via the power of the veto.



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 7/15/2015, 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

boards of FL

boards of FL
EmeraldGhost wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:Regardless of what one might think of Hillary's plans/goals ... I'd like to know how she thinks she's going to get them past a probable Republican dominated Congress filled with Democrats who are also bought & sold by corporate lobbyists?

So, what do I think of her remarks ..... well, it's just a bunch of empty populist rhetoric so far as I can tell.


You're essentially saying "As good or bad as this policy may be, it's all bullshit because it won't pass due to republicans."

You vote for republicans, correct?  You see, that's sorta the problem here.

I voted for Gary Johnson last time around ... if you must know.



Really? I'm actually happy to hear that. I wish more republicans would throw their votes away as well.


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
boards of FL wrote:
Really?  I'm actually happy to hear that.  I wish more republicans would throw their votes away as well.

Don't really consider myself a "republican" .... I even worked on the Carter campaign in my youth (as a volunteer - not paid.) Surprised? (we all have our youthful indiscretions though)

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
Markle wrote:From my good friend, though uninformed BoardsofFL.  

The highlight of the speech appears to be Clinton's plan to promote corporate profit sharing via tax incentives.  This seems reasonable.


The uninformed...or intentionally ignoring facts, my Progressive good friends pretend that every one of those companies already have profit sharing.

It is called, purchasing stock where you work.

Profits with corporations are shared with the STOCKHOLDRS.

Here's one word that makes a mockery of your latest Goebbels propaganda:

ENRON

Floridatexan

Floridatexan
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?


You're asking me this within a thread titled "Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'.   In the first post, I point out what I think is the key element of that plan:  A corporate profit sharing program driven by tax incentives.  I also link you to an article that discusses the plan.  Then there is Google.  

What am I missing here?

BRILLIANT!  You state that Hillary wants to take money from tax payers, people working in those companies and millions of others, to give MORE money to corporations to encourage companies to share their profits with their employees RATHER than their stockholders.

Excuse me, my impression of America and our great Constitution was that it is a GOOD thing to earn a profit.  When did that change and why does someone else, other than the market place, get to decide what is the RIGHT amount of profit?

How does a corporation continue to exist if the profits do not go to the shareholders?

When the officers of a corporation make 300 times what their average worker makes, the market is SKEWED. When someone who works 40 hours a week can't make enough to buy the products he/she is producing, it's a downhill slide for the overall economy. When the financial sector takes 40% of all market profitability, the real economy suffers. When corporations ignore environmental regulations, harming entire communities, they're disregarding the effects of their polluting activities on STAKEHOLDERS. You are familiar with the concept of STAKEHOLDERS, aren't you? That term also includes the employees of the company and their customers.

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-pitches-plan-growth-fairness-economy-n391121


Hillary Clinton offered her vision Monday of a "growth and fairness economy," saying that her agenda would boost Americans' incomes and push companies to share profits with their employees.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can't have one without the other," she said during remarks at the New School in New York City.

The 2016 Democratic candidate said that incomes have stalled even as corporate profits have skyrocketed, creating inequality that is "a drag on our entire economy."

"Wages need to rise to keep up with costs," she said. "Paychecks need to grow. Families who work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and stay ahead."

She took an explicit shot at Republican rival Jeb Bush, directly referencing his statement last week that Americans "need to work longer hours."

"Well, he must not have met very many American workers," she said. Referencing nurses and fast food workers with grueling schedules, she added: "They don't need a lecture. They need a raise."

She also mentioned by name Republican candidates Sen. Marco Rubio, whose tax plan she derided as a "budget-busting giveaway to the super wealthy," and Gov. Scott Walker, whose fights against labor unions in Wisconsin she branded as "mean-spirited and misguided attacks." Walker is slated to formally announce his run later Monday in Wisconsin.

During her remarks, Clinton also called for companies to expand profit-sharing with their employees, pledging to change the tax code to incentivize such moves.

"Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets. It's a win-win," she said.

And she promised to "break down barriers to joining the workforce - especially for women."

The Democratic frontrunner did not explicitly mention progressive rivals like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has won accolades from the party's left wing for his criticisms of Wall Street and big banks.

But she vowed to go beyond the Obama-backed Dodd-Frank banking reforms to "rein in excessive risk on Wall Street," and she called for prosecution of "criminal behavior" of culpable individuals in the banking industry.

Her Highness is offering up the same tried and true failure we have endured for 79 months. It's a near carbon copy of Obamanation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421136/hillary-clinton-economic-agenda-copies-obama-2008

So, the only thing the Dems have to offer is more of the same. I think everyone is tired of "more of the same" and if that is all she has to offer, they will lose in 2016.

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?


You're asking me this within a thread titled "Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'.   In the first post, I point out what I think is the key element of that plan:  A corporate profit sharing program driven by tax incentives.  I also link you to an article that discusses the plan.  Then there is Google.  

What am I missing here?

BRILLIANT!  You state that Hillary wants to take money from tax payers, people working in those companies and millions of others, to give MORE money to corporations to encourage companies to share their profits with their employees RATHER than their stockholders.

'Tax incentives' doesn't mean what you think it means.  They would essentially take less from corporations that adopt a corporate profit sharing policy aimed at boosting wages.  

Markle wrote:How does a corporation continue to exist if the profits do not go to the shareholders?

The same way that corporations that currently have profit sharing policies exist.  What, are you under the impression that corporate profit sharing is a brand new concept invented by Hillary Clinton?  Hahahahaha.

Perhaps you didn't notice but those profit sharing plans are VOLUNTARY, not mandated by government regulations.

Tax incentives are exactly what you say you abhor, corporate welfare.  Which you have refused to acknowledge are taxes paid by private citizens.

You really should seek professional help about that uncontrollable laugh.  I think there's a name for that malady but I'm not sure of the name.  I'll remember it for you.

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
gatorfan wrote:As I asked previously and you failed to address (no surprise) what is HRCs plan?


You're asking me this within a thread titled "Hillary Clinton Pitches Plan for 'Growth and Fairness Economy'.   In the first post, I point out what I think is the key element of that plan:  A corporate profit sharing program driven by tax incentives.  I also link you to an article that discusses the plan.  Then there is Google.  

What am I missing here?

BRILLIANT!  You state that Hillary wants to take money from tax payers, people working in those companies and millions of others, to give MORE money to corporations to encourage companies to share their profits with their employees RATHER than their stockholders.

'Tax incentives' doesn't mean what you think it means.  They would essentially take less from corporations that adopt a corporate profit sharing policy aimed at boosting wages.  

Markle wrote:How does a corporation continue to exist if the profits do not go to the shareholders?

The same way that corporations that currently have profit sharing policies exist.  What, are you under the impression that corporate profit sharing is a brand new concept invented by Hillary Clinton?  Hahahahaha.

Perhaps you didn't notice but those profit sharing plans are VOLUNTARY, not mandated by government regulations.


And Clinton's corporate profit sharing plan is voluntary as well; hence the whole part about tax incentives. The idea is that corporations will voluntarily take part in order to receive tax incentives. If you don't understand the policy, why comment on it so confidently? It basically makes you look like a blabbering idiot.

Feel free to stand corrected at any point here.



Markle wrote:Tax incentives are exactly what you say you abhor, corporate welfare.  Which you have refused to acknowledge are taxes paid by private citizens.


I don't abhor a tax incentive that is the driving factor behind a corporate profit sharing program aimed at addressing income inequality and the gross redistribution of wealth that we have seen take hold over the last 30 years.

No one is "paying" these tax incentives. Corporations that participate in the program would see their tax liability reduced as a result of the tax incentive. Here again, I can only suggest that you read up on what the terms 'tax incentive' and 'corporate profit sharing' mean, as you're clearing ignorant in that regard.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest
Again, Hillary offers nothing different than the last 79 months of failure. The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum