As a (l)ibertarian I have no love for either candidate but the so called fact checkers aren’t checking anything, they are just showing their leftist bias. I think the funniest shot was on the so called equal pay scheme.
Really Hillary? No one deserves equal pay unless they do equal work. Why is that such a hard concept to understand? Of course equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963. So this is just more of the modern left’s victim class warfare. And the myth that women are payed less has been debunked more times then I care to mention.
But is equal pay for equal work fair enough for the feminist? Of course not. Many would go further and claim that society as a whole should financially reward women’s personal preferences just as much as men’s by giving equal pay for unequal work. Maybe women are inclined to make different choices than men, but that just means our culture must be re-engineered so women can follow their inclinations without any financial sacrifice. To do any less would be to undervalue women’s choices in comparison to men’s.
The second one is the Trickle down lie that the left has been perpetrating for decades. Except there never was such a thing as “Trickle Down Economics” Never!
Steven Horwitz writes.
“The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman? . . .
Government doesn’t “give” us tax refunds; it simply refrains from taking more of what we created.What the critics will find, if they choose to look, is many economists who argue that allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. Letting everyone keep more of the value they create through exchange means that everyone has more incentive to create such value in the first place, whether it’s through the ownership of capital or finding new uses for one’s labor.”
And Thomas Sowell writes,
“While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little, tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent lie. It should win the contest both because of its purity — no contaminating speck of truth — and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given. . . . Let’s do something completely unexpected: Let’s stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we “give” something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place. . . .One of the things that provoke the Left into bringing out the “trickle-down” bogeyman is any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole.”
Would anyone here call JFK a “Trickle down nut?” From his speech in 1962.
“Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances–two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a 10 percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth $2.5 billion. . . . In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus. ”
“After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world. . . . Compiling reports of compliance costs from various government agencies and outside sources, author Clyde Wayne Crews found that the “regulation tax” imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion.
By comparison, Canada’s entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India’s is $1.84 trillion.
The problem, Crews notes, is that the combined cost of this “tax” never shows up anywhere in the federal budget — or any other official report — even though it is now bigger than individual and corporate income taxes combined.”
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — When asked to choose among big government, big labor and big business, Americans overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future. The 69% choosing big government is down slightly from a high of 72% in 2013, the last time Gallup asked the question, but is still one of the highest percentages choosing big government in Gallup’s 50-year trend.”
It’s time we take our country back and quit listening to the promise of all the free stuff in exchange for votes. They use to call that a bribe!