Nice try, Hillary: There ain’t no such thing as ‘trickle-down’ economics
Voters deserve to know how much of their money she intends to spend.
Disregard the mainstream media analysis about who won and who lost the first presidential debate. Their analysis is not only useless, but also — if recent history is a guide — whoever they deem the “winner” will likely lose the election. Throughout the Republican primary debate process, the mainstream media repeatedly declared the Trump campaign to be dead and buried and his debate performances to be subpar, only to see Trump win the GOP nomination.The most disturbing part of the debate was the litany of lies used by Hillary Clinton to advance disingenuous liberal talking points, and her slick, fluid delivery in saying those lies. We cannot let these lies go unchallenged and, with the next debate right around the corner, here are a few suggested follow-up questions for Hillary to help stem the tide of dishonesty:
“Mrs. Clinton, you mentioned ‘trickle-down’ economics in the first debate. Please define for American voters exactly what the economic theory of ‘trickle-down’ is?”
This is a critical question because Hillary uses this “trickle-down” economics talking point frequently to advance her class-warfare agenda. But here’s the catch: There is NO economic theory known as trickle-down. The brilliant economist Thomas Sowell has repeatedly debunked this nonsense and challenged anyone who believes otherwise to produce the goods on trickle-down, so we can all agree on what we are debating about. Here’s a quote from Sowell:
It’s a fair question to ask Hillary to produce the theory, is it not? How can American voters engage in a substantive debate about Hillary’s economic guiding principles if she can’t define exactly what those principles are?
“Mrs. Clinton, you stated that the ‘wealthy should pay their fair share.’ What do the wealthy pay now, what percentage is their fair share, and how did you arrive at that number?”
My guess is that Hillary has no idea what percentage of the tax load wealthy Americans pay now or, if she does know, she won’t say. Why won’t she? Because the top 20 percent of earners (yes, income isn’t distributed, it’s earned) pay more than 85 percent of all income taxes collected, and this a really inconvenient talking point for radical, leftist, class warriors when we include the actual data.
When Hillary, who charges hundreds of thousands of dollars to deliver a speech to financially struggling college students, starts yammering about “fairness,” she is hoping you don’t know that two out of 10 Americans pay more than 85 cents of every tax dollar collected. Because, if she told you the truth about tax “fairness” and gave you the real numbers, she would be laughed off the stage.
How can American voters engage in a substantive debate about Hillary’s economic guiding principles if she can’t define exactly what those principles are?
And what is a “fair share” tax rate for the wealthy? Aren’t we entitled to know what number she has in mind? After all, she is running to be the leader of the free world, and aren’t we entitled to know how much of our money she intends to take so that we can vote accordingly and plan for future economic conditions?
Although there is precisely ZERO chance that Mrs. Clinton will disclose just how high she wants the tax rate to go, it would be nice to know, if she happened to slip and give a number, how she came to that conclusion. Did she research it? Did credible, non-partisan economists produce sound, historical, economic data correlating that tax rate with strong economic growth? Again, aren’t we entitled to know how much of our money she intends to take and whether she intends on doing so based on facts and data, not just guesswork and talking points?
Source: Nice try, Hillary: There ain’t no such thing as ‘trickle-down’ economics
