It’s a shame that one of the presidential candidates has denigrated the other side, calling them nasty names and saying they’re not really Americans, which has inspired followers to act out in violent ways to try to silence those who disagree. It’s time for that candidate to stand up, tale responsibility for that eliminationist rhetoric, apologize and demand that followers behave like civilized human beings. How about it, Hillary?...
Remember back in 2012, when Mitt Romney warned in a debate that Russia would be the biggest geopolitical foe facing the next President? Remember how Obama responded, by mocking him for not knowing the Cold War had been over for 20 years. He chortled, “The 1980s are now calling for their foreign policy back.” The media happily joined in the sneering laughter.
Well, it’s too bad we don’t have the President and the foreign policy we had in the 1980s, because maybe then Russia would be in decline instead of on the offensive. Say, remember when Obama lectured us that we shouldn’t elect some unqualified and inexperienced President who would undo his policies because that would be dangerous? Just out of curiosity, would it be more dangerous than Defcon 3?
Hillary Clinton boasted at the last debate that more economists back her tax plan than Trump’s. Bear in mind, these are the same economists who have been surprised every month for the past eight years at the “unexpectedly” low economic growth and job creation under Obama. So the Tax Foundation analyzed just one aspect of their plans side-by-side: the estate (or death) tax. Trump would eliminate it, Clinton would raise it to 65%. Their verdict, from the Wall Street Journal:
Over a ten-year budget window, Trump’s estate tax plan would add an extra 1% to GDP growth, create about 142,000 full-time jobs and raise incomes at all earning levels. Hillary’s plan would lower GDP by 1% over 10 years and cost 194,000 full-time jobs. It would reduce the income of the bottom 4/5ths of earners by around 1%, and of the top fifth by up to 2.3%. And the extra tax revenue upfront would be more than offset by a later drop in GDP growth, making it a net loser for both workers and the government.
Their conclusion: under Trump’s plan, “everyone would gain. Mrs. Clinton’s plan would not so much redistribute wealth as destroy it. Everyone would lose except estate lawyers and life insurers.”
On the plus side, both of those groups are loyal Democratic voters.
Here's the WikiLeaks hacked email revelation that is so disturbing, even the liberal magazine, The New Republic, actually reported on it: a full month before the 2008 election, an executive with the banking giant Citigroup emailed John Podesta a list of recommended people to fill Obama’s Cabinet and other top level jobs. Virtually everyone on the listed ended up getting the jobs Citigroup picked them for. And of course, Citigroup later got one of the biggest bailouts of tax money in history. So for people who derisively called Obama “President Goldman Sachs,” you were wrong. He was President Citigroup. Hillary wants to be President Goldman Sachs.
Once again, WikiLeaks does the job that the mainstream media refuse to do: Visit the link and click “Attachments” to download the entire texts of Hillary Clinton’s private speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Minnesota is so deep blue that if Obamacare can’t work there, it can’t work anywhere. And it’s not working there. All seven remaining insurers are threatening to pull out without massive rate hikes, which would make Minnesota’s Obamacare exchanges the first in the nation to collapse under the weight of their fiscal unsustainability. Naturally, liberals are blaming insurance company greed and demanding even more government involvement in the form of single payer.
All that leads to our QUOTE OF THE DAY, from Instapundit’s Stephen Green:
“Leave it to Big Government to coerce a market into existence, where individuals are required to buy a product they can’t afford to use, and which producers can’t afford to sell — and then blame the free market for the inevitable collapse.”