quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Under Senator Warren’s proposal, no business with more than $1 billion in revenue would be permitted to legally operate without permission from the federal government.

Awesome. Fauxcahontas wants the Feds to "help" run Publix. Maybe the new Joint Committee on Equitable Food Distribution can make sure the bakery keeps those delicious lemon bars in stock.

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
democratic [sic] socialists playing the "Oh yeah!!?? Watch this!" game of one-up manship.

This is the most plausible explanation for this increasingly insane shit.

I think these ridiculous far-left radical trial balloons are designed to push opinion to the left. She knows this specific proposal will never fly, at least, for now. But then when some other candidate proposes some left-wing idea that is less radical by comparison, it will sound almost sane.

They're trying to push our country further left, incrementally.

We have a whole boat load of moonbats to send out of the Commonwealth, every single Democrat in this state thinks she is amazing and is going to take Trump down in 2020.

Believe it or not compared to some of the people running for congress from here she sounds somewhat sane. We have a woman Aryanna Pressley a Boston City Councillor who is running for the 3rd Congessional district, JFK's old congress seat, that wants to abolish ICE un fund CIS and provided no funds for the Office of the President, atop Govt health care, free education, police control by BLM and other groups. She is a win against the incumbent Mike Capuano who is also a Democrat, but the district includes ghetto Boston, The PRC (Peoples Republic of Cambridge) and Sommerville, all make Macerana look conservative.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
This whackjob will NEVER be President of the United States.

This is correct.

She is playing to the hard left, in hopes of a run for President. Solidify them, and then she'll try to get some less radical voters on board.

But it won't work.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
She knows that this is a go-nowhere proposition, that she will be spared by the Republican legislative majority from the ignominy that would ensue from the wholehearted pursuit of this daft program.

Well, if McConnell had any brains, he'd get that sucker out for a roll-call vote posthaste. Be very interesting for Faux O'hontas see her Democrat friends - particularly those running for re-election in Trump districts - run screaming.

In reality it would be completely safe to put it up. It would get zero "R" votes, and not many "D"s. Worst case, it would go to the House to die. The Democratic 2016 Presidential candidate had no words when she was asked in an interview to explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist....wonder if any of their Senators running in 2018 could make that distinction.

Please run on this platform - please run on this platform......

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ironically, state control of what is ostensibly still privately owned industry, is one of the trademark characteristics of fascism. But that word has long since lost any real meaning.

As much as I hate to say it, electing her and allowing her to institute her policies may just be the catalyst needed to hit the reset button, start over, and get the gallows up and running.

Nutcase fraud. Fuck her and those kooky ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Nutcase fraud. Fuck her and those kooky ideas.

Enjoyed the brevity and accuracy of this comment! Good to have you back in the mix!

Let's see, politicians get to keep their campaign funds by paying income taxes or creating taxfree foundations. Wow, the potential to acquire staggering wealth might even bring Harry Reid back.

Oh that would end well.

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
Ironically, state control of what is ostensibly still privately owned industry, is one of the trademark characteristics of fascism. But that word has long since lost any real meaning.

It now means the same as "boogy man" or "mean person." One of the requirements, maybe the only one, is the person be a Republican.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by GregY:
Ironically, state control of what is ostensibly still privately owned industry, is one of the trademark characteristics of fascism. But that word has long since lost any real meaning.

It now means the same as "boogy man" or "mean person." One of the requirements, maybe the only one, is the person be a Republican.

The word does have meaning, but misuse of it has no consequences. Calling the value one greater than two to be 'four' doesn't make it four. It's just a mistake.

Read "The Wages of Destruction" recently and am most of the way through reading "Hitler's Beneficiaries" both of which go through the economics of the Third Reich, and I can tell you that National Socialism had nothing to do with anything Republicans do or espouse, other than they both oppose Communism. As do Democrats (Or, well, they used to. It would be interesting to get them to say so, publicly - could be a good interview question for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-Macarena-Hey-Macarena.)

People forget that the word "Nazi" is short for NDSAP (National Socialist German Worker's Party) and as the name describes, it was a nationalistic (and racist) brand of socialism. Their economic and tax policies were very left wing, and were about as far from a free market as you could imagine. They bought popularity and votes with 'free shit' like all the other socialists.

This is typical for Warren. She has always been an anti-capitalist. Expect her to come up with crazier and crazier nonsense as the 2020 race heats up. All the Dems are going to have to fall over themselves to prove who is the most progressive. She who shall deliver the most free stuff while sticking it to the man shall be the nominee. Of course, it's hard to beat giving away free stuff while black, so Kamala has the inside track if you ask me.

quote:

Of course, it's hard to beat giving away free stuff while black, so Kamala has the inside track if you ask me.

July 23, 2019

Elizabeth Warren's economic plan so bad even CNN says it will crash the economy

It doesn't get worse for a leftist when even CNN is warning that your "economic solution" to the economic problems you've laid out are going to destroy the economy.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren came out with a big, serious-looking economic plan intoning about a coming economic crash, her own supposed ability to forecast such things, and then calling for free college, a soaring minimum wage, more Dodd-Frank regulations on big bad banks, and lots of free stuff. It ran at the top of the screen on RealClearPolitics yesterday afternoon, suggesting it's something likely to be talked about.

Christina Alesci, a plain-vanilla CNN "politics and business correspondent" (not one of those politicized talking heads — an actual reporter), blew the whole thing out of the water:

Here's the Grabien transcript:

KING: "Senator Elizabeth Warren out with a new warning today. She says an economic crash is coming. She also claims she has a plan that could prevent it. In a new 'Medium' post, the 2020 presidential contender writes, 'I warned about an economic crash years before the 2008 crisis, but the people in power wouldn't listen.' She goes on to add, 'Now I'm seeing serious warning signs in the economy again, and I'm calling on regulators in Congress to act.' The Massachusetts Democrat bases her prediction on a number of reasons, including growing household debt and corporate debt, and what she calls a manufacturing recession. Warren also faults President Trump for chaos in the form of the trade war with China, as well as his comments on Brexit. CNN's Cristina Alesci joining us now from New York. Cristina, Warren did get out ahead of the 2008 crisis warning it was coming, but there is some pushback to her calculations now saying she might be too alarmist. What are they?"

ALESCI: "Right. Two things Warren is doing. One, really playing off the PTSD the country suffered post-financial crisis. And number two, she's proposing some solutions that actually might create another crisis. Now, let me explain each of those. Number one, she points to several data points that say the alarm bells should be ringing for a financial crisis. Well, one of the things she points to is the level of corporate debt. Now, while risky loans to corporations have increased post-financial crisis, the ability for those companies to keep up with payments has also increased. So we're not seeing the kind of default rates that would be alarming at this point. Now I'm not saying that's not a metric we should be paying attention to. All I'm saying is that Elizabeth Warren is shaping this conversation in a way that's politically convenient for her. Now, as far as her policy proposals, she is recommending lowering rents, offering affordable child care, offering free tuition at colleges. All of that costs money and the American public should be asking how do you pay for it? One way would be to increase taxes. Another way is to increase government debt. This is the issue the American people should be actually focused on because many experts say if we don't get control of our debt over the next ten years, we could be facing a fiscal crisis. And that would be extraordinarily harmful to our economy."

KING: "I've been here long enough to remember when politicians sometimes in both parties talked about the debt. That was a long time ago."

Alesci's no-brainer point was that all of these Warren solutions cost money, and Warren doesn't seem to think spending the country into the ground is going to be a new problem. Warren's only two ways of enacting her vast giveaway program are through raising taxes, which she implies she's all in for on wicked big corporations, or else through money-printing, same sort of thing that got Venezuela into its economic morass with quintuple-digit inflation. Same sort of thing that got any country experiencing an economic crisis, actually — Zimbabwe 2007, Argentina 2002, Thailand 1997, Indonesia and Russia 1998, Serbia 1994...even the U.S. experienced some of this during the Carter years, too, prompting the Volcker rate hikes (as any old financial journalist can tell you). Alesci is absolutely right. Warren's money-flinging solution is going to come out of someone's hide, and guess what — it's the little guy who's going to pay through the nose eventually. Just ask an Argentinean.

Three other problems with Warren's proposal also stand out.

One, her claim to being this great economic forecaster, someone so very much smarter than the rest of us, is gag-inducing. Everyone was wrong but I was right. Ummm, no. Financial journalists know who the good economic forecasters are, and Warren is not one of them.

Two, the era she talks about as the golden age was the Obama era, that slum of a decade, the decade of extended one-percent subpar growth and zero jobs, whence she enacted her Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That turned out to be an unaccountable and extremely corrupt government morass, famous for its thievery, its focus on destroying small-fry players such as payday lenders, while big ones who donate to Democrats, such as Wells Fargo, got away with murder. The whole thing operated as a slush fund for Democrats. If the election of Trump in 2016 is any indicator, voters don't want more of that.

Third, her current diagnosis (with all her forecasts) is extremely suspect, because Warren's been known to fake exactly this kind of data in the past. CNN sums up Warren's diagnosis as one of corporate borrowing, consumer borrowing, and a manufacturing recession as the problem. In the Trump economy, the latter is unadulterated bee ess. In the case of the former, how taxing corporations and consumers would solve that is a mystery to anyone with a brain. Taxing corporations would slash jobs, returning them to Obama-era hiring levels, as would raising the minimum wage. As far as taxing consumers to pay for all that free stuff, well, that would reduce incomes to Obama-era levels, too, something that President Trump has only begun to reverse with his economic decisions.

The CNN reporter is utterly right. One can only hope that the whole thing was planned, CNN is hoping to knock Warren out in the interest of getting Kamala Harris the nomination (this seems to be their plan), and the reporter will experience no career repercussions from CNN or the howling leftist Twitter mob which is sure to get activated, all for stating the obvious.

https://www.americanthinker.co...ash_the_economy.html