Posted on 08/12/2016 4:37:12 AM PDT by expat_panama
Election 2016: Hillary Clinton has big plans for the economy if she's elected president, as she made clear in her speech in economically troubled Warren, Mich., on Thursday. It's too bad that her big plans involve only big spending and big taxes, which will produce little if any economic growth.
Clinton's speech was framed around four questions. Which candidate has a plan to create good jobs? Who will ensure the top pay their "fair share" of taxes? Who will go to bat for families? And who can deliver results?
But her answer to every question was the same: more government spending...
Clinton's plan to create jobs, for example, is a $275 billion government works program dressed up as "rebuilding the nation's infrastructure." ...
She also says she'll increase...
Who will pay for all this? Easy, just tax businesses and the rich.
As we noted in this space recently, an independent review of Clinton's plan showed that it would be a fiscal disaster of historic proportions. The American Action Forum says her plan would hike taxes by $1.3 trillion, but boost spending by $3.5 trillion over the next decade, which would nearly double the national debt.
At one point in her speech, Clinton says "I happen to think we should be ambitious."
But her plan isn't ambitious. It is nothing more than tax-and-spend the likes of which the country has never seen -- one that would bankrupt the country and further wreck the economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
As it happens we’re in the middle of clearing/planting a few acres of fruit trees here; expanding our operation a bit.
I oppose grants, they are essentially speculative political gifts.
But what's wrong with contracts? If you were in private business, would you not serve whatever customer you can, including a government agency?
At least there's a competitive written bid process and then a binding contract to deliver specific things within a specified time frame in exchange for payment.
What's your proposal ?
Throw more billions at NASA from the already $20 Trillion in-the-hole Federal Credit Card, in hopes they might create something better than the massively inefficient space shuttle failure ?
.
I actually agree with the contract approach. I'm just pointing out that the money still comes out of our taxes, and is not a purely private enterprise endeavor as advocated by the more manic "small-government" libertarians.
"Throw more billions at NASA from the already $20 Trillion in-the-hole Federal Credit Card, in hopes they might create something better than the massively inefficient space shuttle failure?"
Inaccurate. The final space shuttle design is NOT what NASA wanted to build, but what they were forced to compromise on due to massive budget cuts to have more money for war and welfare. In the original design, both stages were fully recoverable.
I figure Trump would back space endeavors more than Obama has and more than H would.
They need something to inspire them besides Pokemon!
Excellent!
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.