Hillary Clinton Smeared By Fox News For Correctly Analyzing Trickle-Down Economics

During the 2012 presidential campaign President Obama gave a speech wherein he paid tribute to the American people who collectively created an environment for business to prosper. That environment included paying for the roads, bridges, water and electricity facilities, and other infrastructure necessities without which the economy would whither.

However, one sentence fragment was lifted out of context from that speech by Mitt Romney’s campaign, and his friendly media cohorts, and used to unfairly clobber the President. That sound bite, you may recall, was when Obama reminded the proprietor class that “You didn’t build that,” meaning that every business has benefited from the investments made by our society and government.

Well, here we go again. Yesterday on Fox News the curvy-couch potatoes of Fox & Friends hosted a segment that focused solely on a sentence fragment that was part of a speech by Hillary Clinton.

Fox News Trickle Down

Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

Clinton was speaking at a rally in support of Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley. The comment in its sliced-up form was “Don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” In essence it is barely different than Obama’s comment two years ago. But it is just as deceitfully excised from its original context. Here is what Clinton actually said:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I’ve been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. That’s what we want to see here, and that’s what we want to see across the country.

“And don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather spectacularly.

“One of the things my husband says, when people say, what did you bring to Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he demonstrated why trickle down should be consigned to the trash bin of history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs over seas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn’t add up.”

It’s plain as day that Clinton was referring to the discredited sham known as trickle-down economics. She also hammered Republicans for opposing a pay raise for America’s workers while simultaneously pushing for a tax cut for America’s wealthy. That is exactly the reverse of what is needed to stimulate the economy. When the middle class has more money in their pockets they spend it, increasing profits for businesses and creating the demand that spurs employers to hire. Conversely, when the rich get more money it is typically directed to Wall Street or retirement accounts which have no productive impact on job growth.

Particularly disturbing were the comments by Fox’s business maven, Maria Bartiromo. For someone who should know better, she offered an ignorant appraisal of how the job market works. She accused Clinton of calling business evil, which never happened, and turned the whole debate into a political drama saying…

“Everybody knows that businesses create jobs. I mean, this is not brain surgery. We know that businesses, people that run business actually create the jobs. And I think Hillary knows that as well. […] Here we are a week away from the midterms, she’s gearing up for 2016, she’s firing up the base.”

Apparently Bartiromo knows even less about economics than she does about brain surgery. Businesses do not create jobs. They create products and services. But there are no jobs until there is consumer demand. That means people have to want the products and have the funds to pay for them. If a company has such demand for their product they will hire new employees. If there is no demand they will not hire anyone, no matter how many tax breaks they get.

[For a deeper look into who the “Real Job Creators” are, see this article and infographic]

The big fallacy about business is that it focused on creating jobs. But that isn’t true and the proof is that no business sits around trying to figure out ways to increase its expenditures on staff. To the contrary, they spend a great deal of time trying to find staff they can cut. Since their mission is to increase profits, their goal is to reduce expenses, and personnel are generally first on the list of cost-cutting measures. That’s one of the reasons that businesses are so drawn to outsourcing to foreign labor.

So businesses, rather than being job creators, are more often job destroyers, trying to operate with the fewest number of employees possible. And when Clinton says not to let anyone tell you that corporations and businesses that create jobs, she is spot on. It is, and has always been, consumers that create the demand that creates jobs. Trickle-down economics was a fat-cat scam from its inception. Fox News and other right-wing deceivers will perpetually mislead their ill-informed flock, but the truth is available for those clear-eyed enough to want to see it (which means no Fox News viewers or Tea Partiers).

Shameless self-promotion…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.


11 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Smeared By Fox News For Correctly Analyzing Trickle-Down Economics

  1. Posted on MM threads: Bartiromo and Right Wing Media at 8:22p. CDT.

  2. so the next logical question is – if not business – who (creates jobs)? Some of what you say is true, but it’s the way it supposed to be. Speicifically – trying to produce a product for the lowest cost – it’s not a social experiment – it’s the way products get delivered to the people efficiently.
    Of course, nothing about today’s economy is free market capitalism – which is the best and most efficient economic system. Your bitch is with the government, who made their alliance with the bankers many many years ago – to enrich a few and concentrate power at the highest levels vs with the people. If we still had government issued money – ie gold and silver – the people would hold the power. but as it stands, the banks issue the currency and they control the people and the government. You’re article, as others have, still suggest your more communist than anything else, but you’ll deny, deny deny.

    • This post one major flaw that completely shreds it. I suppose in you haste to lable America’s current economic model as Communist you overlooked it.

      Where do banks get all their money from? Hint, its not from the government. Which banks “issue currency” to which people btw. What does “issue currency” mean? Wealth distribution?

      Well one thing is certain, you don’t understand how banks work or what Communism is since banks, both private or public is an intrument of capitalism. If you want to object to this, show me what role in Karl Marx’s vision of Communism do banks play.

  3. Let’s talk about another part of this story – the progressive remedy. Let the system stay as it is – the banks and uber-wealthy are permitted to steal everything from the people – but these thieves pay a lot of what they take back to the government through ridiculous taxes – the so called fair share as defined by progressive Mark. Now the government has control over the wealth that was stolen from the average joe and they use it (redistribute it) as they see fit. Enslavement complete. Doesn’t that sum it up Mark? Que Desdinova for some angry response to an obvious affront to the progressive religion.

    • If those thieves had their way, they’d be paying way less, and who are the ones who are perfectly fine with them doing that? I guess you forgot to mention them, very convenient.

      Btw, it’s true that the rich pay more individually as a percentage of their income as compared to those that are less well off (duh!), but considering there are far less of these rich guys to pay their “high taxes” as you put it, the total sum paid in taxes as a whole don’t come from the rich group, but rather those lower down. There has been a group that tried to lie about such lower income groups paying NO taxes at all. Same group you conveniently left out above.

      To end off, let me say something about your convenient characterisations of the “thieving government”. To begin with, much of the wealth the rich obtain from both the lower economic classes as well as from the government through things like infrastructure and legislation (conveniently forgot about this didn’t you?), stays with the rich. To say otherwise would mean that the rich are either no longer rich or in significant danger of becoming not rich due to this “thievery”. That does not gel with reality so it’s safe to say that your characterisation of the government as thieves, something you never justified, is sheer bullshit.

      Of course since you have so much problems with the government and seem to want to let the rich keep their money, let’s see how your scenario works out. First off the rich CAN “offer work” through corporations etc. However they don’t have to actually do that, and even if they do they do, they don’t have to do so locally. Such businesses, and the rich who control them are only interested in making money for thmselves. If you think this is wrong then name me one for profit business that would put concern for general unemployment over their bottomline.

      If businesses can make more money by offering jobs to locals they will do that. If as it is nowadays, they can make more money by outsoucing or investing in foreign ventures, they will do that instead. Their bottomline is their most important motivation, not the unemployment in their country.

      Government on the other hand, have a vested interest in ensuring that the unemployed get jobs. Each unemployed person is both a potential drain on the country’s resources, or a waste of labor potential. Such people would,through jobs, contribute not only through taxes, but also through labor and spending that would stimulate the rest of the economy. That is why the “thieving government” would like to ensure that the unemployed get jobs and would focus on infrastructure or policies that may not be directly profitable, but woul help reduce unemployment.

      This is a fact the “progressive religion” you mentioned above recognizes and therefore supports. The opposing religion by the group conveniently not mentioned, is one that worships Mammon and is in favour of the rich corporations, whose main concern is their own bottomline, to be in charge of the country’s wealth.

      And you are a self-proclaimed cultist…. I mean, devout worshipper of that religion.

      Dosen’t that sum it up nicely Steve?

      • Boy, you’re living in some alternate reality. I think what I said is that I would prefer the rich not get our money in the first place – not that they should keep it.

        Also, you have your head really far up your ass – you assume – incorrectly I might add – the government will be on the side of the people. For much of the last 100 years they have always been on the side of money and power – and it has picked that for more than 100 years. Even this president – who is supposed to be about hope and change – picked the bankers. The banks created the problem, then when it crashed – none of them were ever arrested – the government went out and borrowed more from them to “fix” the problem – both TARP (ok that was BUSH) and the stimulus (that was mr. hope and change). You’re so damn blind – wake up. These rotten bastards create a problem and fix it with more of the same – and guess who foots the bill, you and me. wake up moron. This just keeps repeating and the government picks the same side every time – and it isn’t ours. Next War please….
        I would argue what we’re in right now started 50 years ago when JFK was assasinated and that tool LBJ took over – enter Viet Nam – remove silver from money – start the great society …….and that continued into Nixon and the removal of gold backing from the dollar – creating a world on fiat money – ie bank issued currency. Now we’re about to pay the piper and guess who will hold the bag again – suckers like you and me. yeah – government is really on our side – they sold us down the river and you’re too blind to see it.

  4. This is undoubtably one of the stupidest things the rightwing fart bubble blogosphere has attempted to foist upon the American people. What HRC said is unquestionably correct. Demand creates jobs not bs job creators. But conservatives are despicable footsoliders for the plutocracy and anything they can do to ensure the rich rule they will.

    • So you’re saying the free market produces jobs – we can agree on something. Government has a part in killing demand by directly taxing the people – the Banks fill in the gap with debt – not a sustainable way to keep an economy afloat – but a great way to impoverish the masses. I was expecting someone here to say government is the source of all job creation. “job creators” are opportunists who see a need and fill it – so they play an important part – ignoring their role is just as ignorant. Stop hating individual producers – the honest ones at least.

      • Government is currently looking at how not to tax people into poverty since that would be no good for the country as a whole. They also have tried to come up with ways to facilitate employment among those with no jobs.

        What are the rich corporatists doing on this front and what ate their motives in comparison.

        Banks don’t force debt onto people unless people borrow from them. They aren’t forced to do that by banks, yet they borrow to be able to purchase things like houses.

        Would the people and businesses that sell such things lower their prices out of concern for such? It might mean not pushing them into debt after all….

        • Here is an exercise to show you how all of us have been taken by government and banks:
          get if you can a 1964 quarter and a 1965 quarter. Look at them both in your hand – they look exactly the same except their composition – 64 = 90% silver, 65 = copper nickel. imagine yourself in 1965 – one year earlier your quarter had 25 cents in silver, but today’s in 65 it has 7 cents in metals using todays value of copper and nickel. The government and the banks tell you they are both the same, but you know they aren’t . The 65 has value only by dictate (fiat) – it can go away just as easily as it came. The 64 has the value in the coin and you own it – it can only be transferred to someone else if you give it by choice to them. The other was taken from you without your permission and only has value so long as everyone believes it has value and that value can be reduced at will – not your will either. Who did that – the government did it to everyone – it’s a small example but it should get the point across unless you don’t believe your own eyes – you can apply this to every paper dollar in your pocket, your bank account and your retirement account. All done by the banks with the permission of government – that is who is watching out for you – wake up.

Comments are closed.