The ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Party

Clinton_CoakleyAt a campaign rally in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton did her best to prove that she could out-Warren Warren by declaring, “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

If the organizations that actually hire and pay workers don’t create jobs, who does?

Some leftists say that if you leave a glass of milk and a plate of cookies out on the table overnight along with a neatly spaced resume on recycled paper, elves will sneak in and create a job for you.

“You know that old theory, ‘trickle-down economics,’” Hillary smirked. “That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

Speaking of things that have failed rather spectacularly, aside from Hillary’s time as Secretary of State, her latest memoir or Martha Coakley whose rally was the platform for Hillary’s tripe, there’s the old theory that government central planning creates jobs.

That theory has been tried in the last six years and it has failed rather spectacularly.

It has failed so spectacularly that Martha Coakley once again can’t beat a Republican in Massachusetts. Coakley is claiming that it’s a dead heat when polls show that she’s losing by 9 points. But while Hillary insisted that her husband “brought arithmetic” to Washington (someone had to count rental costs on the Lincoln Bedroom and presidential pardons for international fugitives), leftists are really bad at math.

Their theory failed so miserably that Hillary’s party is about to lose the Senate and no Democratic candidate wants to be seen with her old boss out of fear that his stench of failure will cling to them.

Hillary Clinton is attacking Reagan while campaigning for Carter. She’s having Mondale acid flashbacks. But despite Marx, Obama and Warren, businesses actually do create jobs. Lefty politicians who have never worked for a living while claiming that businesses don’t create jobs… don’t create jobs.

The savviest cattle futures investor in all of Arkansas and former Wal-Mart board member is signaling that she intends to be a member of the Obama/Warren “You didn’t build that” party. And that’s her business. But Hillary Clinton’s only real business was monetizing her political connections.

That’s still the business that she’s in today.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t know how jobs are created because her jobs have always come through her political connections. In Hillary’s world, government really does create jobs. To professional parasites like her, a private sector in which small businesses labor to deliver products or services to their customers without being subsidized by the government doesn’t exist.

A government economy makes sense if you’ve been living all your life in one. If your idea of “work” is going from the Ivy League to political non-profit activism interlinked with the government to law firms interlinked with the government to public office, you naturally think that corruption creates jobs.

Except you don’t call it corruption — you call it public service.

Hillary Clinton’s current round of public service consists of giving six-figure speeches to corporations, trade industry groups and public universities, some of which just happen to be run by cabinet members from her husband’s old administration.

After stealing as much furniture from the White House as the moving van could carry, the “flat broke” Clintons bought a $1.7 mil colonial mansion in Westchester funded by Terry McAuliffe, the current ridiculously corrupt Governor of Virginia with a long history of mixing bad business with worse politics.

The Clinton-McAuliffe real estate deals go back to the early days of the White House when McAuliffe got an improper $375K payment from Prudential while his DNC picked up $85K in exchange for a government pension agency signing a $187 million lease on a Prudential building.

Who can believe that the corner store creates jobs when you’re looking at profit margins like that?

As McAuliffe once put it, “I’ve met all of my business contacts through politics. It’s all interrelated.”

This is the corrupt ocean that the Clintons swim in. Expecting Hillary to know how jobs are created is like expecting an ex-con to go straight. Crime is all he knows. It’s all that the Clintons, the Obamas and the Warrens know. We are dealing with people who have no concept of how earning a living even works.

Socialism appeals to them on two levels. First it lets them skim as much off the top as they can. Second it makes sense to them because in their experience jobs are created through government contacts. If Americans need jobs, why not just give money to a politically connected green energy company that promises to create a bunch of jobs while outsourcing its business plan to the elves?

Like McAuliffe’s GreenTech, which in true Clinton style involved Hillary Clinton’s brother, dirty Chinese businessmen, an international fugitive, endangering national security, insider lobbying, an SEC investigation, millions in government loans and 2,000 union jobs for Virginia that never materialized.

And those million cars a year that it was supposed to build are nowhere in sight. But that’s how you create jobs in Hillary’s world.

Hillary Clinton thinks that jobs are created by magic elves named Terry McAuliffe in exchange for leaving out large bribes of milk, cookies and graft. And in her world, she’s right. Unfortunately the only people employed by McAuliffe jobs are Terry McAuliffe and assorted Clinton pals.

You can’t run an economy on McAuliffe jobs just like you can’t run one on Mafia jobs.

Corruption is a layer on top of the economy. It’s not the economy. That’s what corrupt politicians like Obama, Clinton and Warren don’t understand.

When central planning wins, everyone outside the Party loses. That’s what happened in the USSR where central planning built an entire economy of mandatory jobs without creating money or anything worth buying with it for anyone except Communist Party members. Most Russians just created their own private enterprises by reselling anything they could find at their jobs on the black market.

The Communist Capitalists of China get along so well with the Communist Capitalists of Chicago because they speak the common language of corruption, fake companies, big bribes and self-righteous ideology. But unlike the USSR, the progressives not only haven’t added money (to anyone except the Party), but they haven’t even created jobs. And unlike the ChiComs, they haven’t built anything either.

The modern leftist believes that wealth is created through debt and jobs through government orders. She knocks millions out of work and if they stay out of work long enough, she declares that the economy has recovered because unemployment is down. She raises the price of food and electricity to save the environment without ever being personally affected. She asserts that the vast diversion of wealth into government, crony corporations and dirty little McAuliffe schemes makes her a patron of the worker.

Businesses don’t create jobs, she thinks. She does. But the only jobs she creates are for the burly men stripping the covers off unsold copies of her memoir and tossing the rest in the trash.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/ Edward Cline

    Speaking of creating jobs for bookstore employees and book discounters and remainders, that is, people tasked to get rid of the mountains of unsold copies of “Hard Choices,” I was in a Barnes & Noble over the weekend browsing and spotted a table — a discount table, piled high with “Hard Choices” with a new sticker price of 75% off. But they won’t be there for long, because even tables reserved for failed books are expensive “shelf space,” and those copies of Hillary’s faux biography will definitely be sent to the pulpers in about a week, if not sooner. That’s if B&N doesn’t have a return agreement with the publisher. If it does, then it’ll be the publisher’s task to shred the books. I can’t think of better justice for that work of “fiction.”

    • Daniel_Greenfield

      Too bad you didn’t get a photo.

      • carpe diem 36

        I will take his word for it.

        • Dan Knight

          Agreed, I’m sure Ed’s right. I think Daniel means a photo would be nice to have for blogs, articles or a souvenir. It would make a great blog post icon!

    • Michael Garfinkel

      The publishers are F.O.B.s and sent Hillary the check long ago.

      I understand there’s been some crumbling at the company….

  • Joe The Gentile

    Trickle-down economics has failed? The profits of of a free-market system do not get passed down to the people? Well, there’s a perfectly controlled experiment on that. A single nation was divided in two after WWII, and in one part the free-market system prevailed and in the other it did not. Four decades later, the part with nothing trickling down (East Germany) was an economic ruin with economic misery for all, while the other part with lots trickling down was an economic powerhouse with one of the highest standards of living in the world. So don’t tell me nothing trickles down. The evidence that an enormous amount trickles down is incontrovertible.

    The Left purports to love sustainability, but disregards the most important ‘sustainability’ of all — economic sustainability. And economic sustainability is another word for ‘profit’ which is a dirty word in their worldview.

    • johnlac

      There are numerous other examples. For instance China, which is now really authoritarian rather than communist. A few years after Mao’s death Deng Xao Peng instituted the market-based, economic reforms that made China the economic powerhouse it is today. He didn’t use anything from Mao’s little red book on how to keep people poor and starving.
      North Korea is another example. Before the Castros took over Cuba and installed those wonderful Marxist reforms Cuba was the economic power of Latin America and had a higher standard of living than many western European countries. All destroyed thanks to the Castros.
      The moral of the story: command economies make people poorer….demand economies create wealth. It looks like Hillary would like to become the new Presidente of a Castro-style U.S. Something like the present occupant of the White House.

      • Joe The Gentile

        Yes. There are many examples. Communism brings poverty in its wake always. The beauty of Germany is that the experiment is strictly *controlled* — the Left cannot plead confounding variables, because a highly homogeneous nation was divided into two parts of close-to-equal quality, which had the same ethnicity, started much the same at the start of the ‘experiment’, and proceeded at the same time under the same world-trade and technological conditions. The only difference that mattered is that one had ‘trickle-down’ happening and the other did not.

        • Gee

          In 1980 Israel had huge inflation and a terrible economy. We were on the ropes so to speak from a totally socialist economy.

          We went free market and now we have the 19th best economy in the world and gaining ground fast. But of course free market system doesn’t work – just ask any leftist

          • tickletik

            I was having a conversation with some aging long haired leftist in Jerusalem a few months back and he was whining about how there was “too much money” and it was damaging the society.

            Nasty hippy.

          • I_Am_Me

            Abundance breeds Leftism. No country in the last 2000+ years has figured out how to break the cycle.

          • kiwi41

            And that has been achieved in a continual state of war .
            Imagine if the money and effort from the war effort could be applied to science, technology, industry and commerce.

      • carpe diem 36

        There are some more such examples, for instance Argentina and Brazil which are now debtor nations and were not too long ago so rich, and then of course there is Venezuela with its huge oil reserves that was so rich until Chavez came and “improved” its economy.
        In Cuba for a short while Castro allowed people to plant vegetables in their little plots of lands and sell them in the open market at street corners, and after a short while he discovered that some of those mini farmers were making very good money on the produce they sold and that caused, of course, “inequality”. so he ordered those mini farms destroyed and disallowed the growing and selling anything by individuals. He knew that it was not Gov’t that had created those jobs, contrary to the eediot Hillary.

      • jerseydave

        Plus Venezuela – Oil out the wazoo and an Economic basket case.

  • truebearing

    If businesses don’t create jobs, how do they make money, or accidently end up with tens, hundreds, or thousands of employees? The employees have to be paid — the government insists. The profits are heavily taxed — the government insists. So in order to stay in business, they have to have productive employees — not goldbrickers like the government hires — to facilitate the business’s mission and stay competitive. Business doesn’t have a monopoly on everyone else’s money.
    .

    Hillary wants to force businesses into equal-pay-for-women schemes, but if their jobs were all created by the government, why is she attacking businesses?
    And what about racial quotas? Why is the government so racist? Why won’t the government hire black people?
    And what about all of that “worker oppression” people like Hillary are always babbling about? For years we’ve listened to the Left yammer ad nauseam about worker’s rights, equal pay, glass ceilings, raising the minimum wage, etc., yet apparently the statists were whining about the state, not capitalists. If businesses don’t create jobs, why are they expected to raise the minimum wage?

    Apparently, Hillary skipped reading Marx and went straight to Alinsky. She learned how to lie real well — that came naturally — but she seems to have missed a lot.. Even Alinsky knew how jobs were created. He had to or there would be no one to hate. Marx knew who created jobs. He went out of his way to prove he couldn’t do a better job at it than the capitalists… but he was keenly aware of who was creating the jobs.

    Now comes Evillary, a desperatel powermonger who, in her last shot at power, driven mad by her rapacity for that power, has abandoned the evil wisdom of Alinsky and blurted out something so idiotic that even some on the Left will wince when they hear it.

    How can Hillary expect to gain the trust and respect of Americans when she these moronic things because she’s afraid of fake Indians?

    • Daniel_Greenfield

      In Hillary’s experience, corporate welfare. It’s how the companies she’s associated with worked.

      • truebearing

        There is no doubt that Hillary’s experience is limited to acquiring money through political leverage. Her greed is far too great to be sated by her ability to actually earn money.

        My theory on Hillary is that she is an ideological cynic. She and Bill see the ideology of the Left as the perfect vehicle to massive power. They are more enamored of the tactics and ease at which the true believers can be manipulated than the ideology itself. I believe Soros falls into the same camp. In fact, I don’t think the people who end up ruling the majority of these revolutions are any different.

        The Gramscis, the professors, and the young goose steppers are the pure ideologues. The ones who end up in power are the most ruthless and cynical. They always put themsleves and their personal desire above everything, including the ideology. That is why marxism never progresses past fascism.

        Obama seems to be at least somewhat different, but he has islam in the mix, plus he is a virulent racist (excuse the redundancy). Obama’s ideology, and his psyche, is a composite — kind of like his fake girlfriend — but like all despots, it still boils down to one form or another of malignant narcissism. Ideology is secondary.

      • carpe diem 36

        Her experience is not real, she has never worked even for a corporate welfare type of business, and even if she did she is either stupid or thinks the public is stupid, Either way she is a loser.

    • I_Am_Me

      As much as I despise Marx and Alinsky, I cannot claim that they were not deep thinkers due some level of respect. Hillary was not always a Leftist. Once she saw that it was the best way to power, she flipped. But she is not a deep thinker in the slightest. She’s a semi-clever demagogue riding Alinsky’s intellectual coattails. She is dishonest to the core, deserves no respect and should be kept as far away from power as possible. She’s the worst sort of politician imaginable.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        Precisely. That’s why she has such appeal to the Left.

    • carpe diem 36

      That is why Hillary will never live this remark down. People know who creates jobs and know that she is either too stupid, too ignorant or too Socialistic to be president. We must repeat her remark every day so people will remember it and not vote for her, not even make her a viable candidate, Ever!!!

  • Hank Rearden

    Two points…
    1. If you think government creates job, let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s have two towns, one with several industries and no government; and one with government and no industry. Which one will prosper, and which one will be a sink-hole? Ask Detroit.

    2. Trickle-down economics is the concept of the stupid or the ignorant. In any business, labor is usually the largest expense and the first paid. As the revenues surge up – not trickle down – other expenses get paid. If the revenues surge further, then at the tippy top, the owner gets paid. If the revenues don’t get that far, the owner is sol. Trickle down? Trickle down from where? As this superb article says, Hillary DOES live in a trickle-down world. Since she doesn’t actually DO anything, the wages she sees – to her maid – DO trickle down from her. How much do you think her maid makes as compared to herself? What is the income inequality in that relationship?

    • Paul of Alexandria

      The leftists will insist that the second town will prosper rather than the first. Without a proper government in place all of the rabid right-wing white male Christian terrorists will rape, pillage, and burn.

    • Dan Knight

      Hank thank you for the clarification on ‘trickle down.’ We’re so used to accepting the results of the Left’s Label Machine we forget that the labels almost never describe the idea, group, or theory that it labels. We use ‘trickle down’ because everyone thinks it means ‘keep what you earn,’ or ‘small business,’ but your description shows how fraudulent the label is.

  • Elizabeth capecod

    This woman is such a toxic harpy.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      The idea that this corrupt fraud has a lock on the Democrat nomination may be an ominous harbinger of worse things to come.

      Certainly, it’s clear the Democrat party is over; it’s not socialist, it’s mindless – and it’s dead.

      It’s calling card is now precipitous decline, period.

      And the appeal that Hillary exhibits to the broader electorate is directly proportional to the state of decay that afflicts the entire country.

      To underestimate the extent of the decay is folly.

      Consider this: in New York City, Anthony Weiner, (the husband of Hillary’s Muslim Brotherhood confidante Huma Abedin), was regarded as a viable candidate for mayor – AFTER it was revealed that he texted images of his genitals to multiple women.

      In his place, “Red Bill” De blasio, recent defender of an anti-Semitic opera, (and the first mayor of a major city ineligible to obtain a security clearance from Homeland Security) was elected.

      “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

      • ltcdmward

        Your #2 sentence described Zombies — the “walking dead”. I am reminded of Bob Hope’s — albeit scripted — movie comment describing the Democrat adherents. Ahead of its time in the, what, 1930s or 1940s?

        • Michael Garfinkel

          Yes, I know.

          But they no idea.

          As recently as thirty years ago, no one would have believed possible the NYC scenario I recounted.

      • Elizabeth capecod

        I think hillary is a harbinger of bad things to come for dems, which is a good thing for republicans.

  • bob smith

    Well done Daniel.

    The law of supply and demand, particularly as it relates to the over-supply of hard choices should have been enough evidence to the contrary for this charlatan, President wannabe.

  • steve b

    EVERY BUSINESS THAT DIDN’T CREATE THE JOBS THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE WORKING AT SHOULD CLOSE DOWN AND LET THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT IDIOT, HILLARY, PROVIDE JOBS FOR THEM. WITHOUT, OF COURSE, ALL THE TAX MONEY THAT THE PEOPLE WHO USED TO WORK IN THOSE JOBS THEIR EMPLOYERS DIDN’T CREATE USED TO PAY.

    • putthehammerdown

      How about a one-day, National shut down and you, personally using a bit less of your ‘Caps Lock’ key ?

      • steve b

        I TRIED TO USE ONLY PART OF THE CAPS KEY, BUT IT DIDN’T WORK. SORRY

  • joe kulak

    Another masterpiece by Daniel Greenfield.

    • DowntotheBone

      Agreed.

  • DowntotheBone

    “Corruption is a layer on top of the economy. It’s not the economy. That’s what corrupt politicians like Obama, Clinton and Warren don’t understand.”

    Actually, those America-hating/destroying parasites understand that very well; and have grown, and continue to grow fat while they suck the lifeblood from their host.

    BTW, from the last few photos I’ve seen of Shrillary, she appears to have had some face work done…or is that only my imagination?

    • JayWye

      her “face work” is an ongoing project. Probably requires an entire staff just for that.
      she also relies on Photoshop,I suspect.

  • Gee

    I do find it funny that the leftists claim that ‘You Didn’t Build That’ when in fact they did build it.

    The railroads were 100% financed and built by the people not the government.

    Until the mid-1950s a vast majority of the public roads were in fact built by corporations and private individuals. That the government stole under President Eisenhower.

    The facts are not on the side of the Dumbacrats

    • ebonystone

      Some railroads were built by governments — like much of the Pennsylvania Railroad by the State of Pennsylvania. Others — mainly in the West — were given free land by the government on which to build a railroad.
      Federal involvement in road building goes back at least to the National Road, begun in 1811. Virtually all modern roads were built by governments, with the feds getting involved beginning with the Federal Highway Act of 1916.

      • JayWye

        “given free land by the government”..LOL, the land was already “free”. it really wasn’t government’s to be parceling out.
        The same goes for today.

        • ebonystone

          If it wasn’t the government’s, whose was it? Maybe it still belonged to the French and Mexicans? Or maybe the various Indian tribes?

          • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

            It was ownerless. One of government’s legitimate jobs is to act as custodian of ownerless land. Eventually, you want some kind of Homestead Act so that the land goes to those who will work it.

      • Gee

        “In the first three decades of the 19th century Americans built more than 10,000 miles [16,000 km] of turnpikes, mostly in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. Relative to the economy at that time, this effort exceeded the post-World War II interstate highway system that present-day Americans assume had to be primarily planned and financed by the federal government”.

        Prior to Amtrak – over 90% of the railroads where not funded in anyway by the government. Nice try – but the facts are not there

        • ebonystone

          The “first three decades of the 19th century” aren’t quite the same thing as “until the mid-1950′”s.
          I agree that most railroads did not receive government funding, but government ownership and funding of railroads pre-dates Amtrak. The Long Island RR in NY was state-owned from 1966, and SEPTA in PA was subsidizing commuter railroads in 1966, to give just two examples.
          Also the western railroads received grants of thousands of square miles of land from the feds on which to build railroads. That sure sounds like funding to me.

  • kafir4life

    How many jobs have Cankles and Quickzipper Clinton created while amassing their 100 million (plus) in wealth? Cankles is still a big proponent of estate taxes, just not for her and Quickzipper.

  • putthehammerdown

    These inane comments that HillBilly is trumpeting are nothing more than attempts to pre-empt Lizzy Warren in a phony rush to placate H R C’s Socialist-style backers.
    Is there anyone in America that does not know by now that this freaking harpy will simply say or do most anything to rachet herself upward among the vast Left Wing Conspiracy, when she’s looking for recognition ?
    Only a total & complete moronic, illiterate a$$h0le would give what she exclaimed more than a slight chuckle and an eye-roll.
    But Our Nat’l Problem is that the ones I’ve described are so prevalent……..

    • Michael Garfinkel

      People are missing the point!

      For the Clintons, there is only one “ism,” and it’s hardly socialism.

      That “ism” is totalitarianism.

      The Clinton’s are all about the pursuit of power, and nothing else.

      • I_Am_Me

        The Left, and those who cloak themselves in the words of the Left, aspire to power to enact their Social Justice Revenge. They call it striving towards Utopia, or Progressivism, but we all know it’s envy driven revenge. Mulch the fields with the bodies of the tall poppies, so the little poppies can’t be jealous anymore.

  • Joe Esposito

    This woman is as feckless a person that has ever existed next to her rapist husband.

  • Elizabeth capecod

    I do think she motivates and inspires like-minded moonbats.

  • Cappy1437

    Excellent article. Everyone should read this and anyone who runs a business and must meet payroll appreciates this information getting out there to the public.

    • carpe diem 36

      America did not have a Socialist gov. or even a candidate for 200 years and became the richest most successful and most powerful nation in the world, but ever since Obama came on the scene and brought with him a Socialist regime America became a shadow of its old self, a failure both economically and militarily. Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the “change” Obama promised is fulfilled, but not in the way his supporters were hoping for. They are the ones who were betrayed by his ugly philosophy, which now Hillary is promoting, but I believe people are smart enough not to buy. If we want America to be strong and its people successful we have to work hard and defeat socialism no matter who promotes it.

      • Scar

        I appreciate what you’re saying, but the socialist epidemic in this country started long before Obama entered the stage. Ever hear of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society? Both programs were rife with socialist ideology, and are the forerunners of today’s welfare state. Heck, even public education is mandated in Marx’s Ten Planks, but never mentioned in the Constitution. Obama is simply the culmination of a socialist cancer that took root decades ago. However, the decline has definitely been expedited during Emperor Obama’s rule.

        • I_Am_Me

          I’d say it started with Theodore Roosevelt and the original Progressive Era. Prohibition, Eugenics, Income Tax, etc.

          As soon as there was abundance from the industrial revolution, all the tax and spend ideas started to sprout like weeds. And these lead to Puritanical plans to make a New Man. A Fixed Man.

          As any intellectual Leftist. The seminal thought for them is “fixing” human nature to create harmony through collectivism instead of the brutishness of individualism and competition. And any good Leftist will claim to be the one who should be running the show. An elitist if you will, cocksure of his intellectual and moral superiority.

          • Scar

            You are correct, it did indeefd start before the pair of abominations to which I referred. Basically, I was hitting the major high (i.e. low) points in my post. If you haven’t already done so, you might take a look at “Not Yours to Give,” a great story about Rep. David Crockett campaigning for re-election and being schooled by one of his constituents. It addresses [possibly] the earliest welfare handout by Congress. Some people question its authenticity; but whether or not it’s factual is irrelevant, the point made is indisputable. It should be required reading in our schools, but that will never happen, of course. The NEA would wet their collective pants.

  • Cymbaline

    My job was created by a corporation. They did build that.

  • Dan Knight

    Thank you Daniel! Professional parasites indeed. The career criminal believes every crime she commits is justified because it doesn’t occur to her that others never commit these crimes no matter how disastrous the personal consequences.

  • cree

    The Hag is kicking it up with the Saul Alynsky propaganda tactics. That’s how leftists play: use propaganda, lies, gin up animosities for the dupes to get all self righteous about. So what’s so great about progressivism if that’s how they work the public to be on their side, you know, like their doing in Ferguson, like how the One’s regime played it the last six years?

    The hag’s job for many years has been political hack, paid by the taxpayers with all the progressive hierarchy side benefits through the right collusion connections and marriage. And every now and then she is a highly paid propagandist at gatherings or dupe schools of indoctrination where they are educated in the compassionate progressive theories. The corporation of dupes will love her 2 year interview and resume to be their dupes leader. Dupes need her. The right needs to deprogram and educate dupes with truth. The hag doesn’t merit the job she seeks that is compensated through exploitation from corporations and business and their workers.

  • Sparafucile

    Hillary’s husband *did* bring arithmetic to the White House.

    One bimbo, two bimbos, three bimbos, four. How many BJ does that make?
    (If you really know math, you’d now be asking if this is a “hidden-variable” problem.)

  • poneros

    Technically she is right, prosperity creates jobs, not companies (because companies react to supply and demand, they don’t just create a job without need). The consumer market is made up of the 99%, not the 1%.

    • Michael Garfinkel

      Without industry, and companies to organize that industry, there’s no prosperity, is there?

      • poneros

        Are you arguing for the chicken or the egg? Your perspective looks at a industrial system that is starting, not one that is already running.

        You seem to agree that you need companies to create prosperity and prosperity to create companies. Guess what happens when companies don’t pay workers to be prosperous? The cycle fails..

        • Michael Garfinkel

          Markets tend to correct unfair labor practices.

          Industry is required at every stage of the production of goods and services.

          But I’m not interested in a Economics 101 refresher.

          The issue is our friend Hillary, who was employing a cliche to gin up resentment in her audience.

          That’s how she and the Democrats seek to win – through the full employment of resentment and demagoguery.

  • JayWye

    socialists targeted education in the early 1900′s;
    they’ve been working at it a long time,have been wildly successful at gaining control of it,and now we’re seeing the effects of that,all across our society.
    Legislators,JUDGES,doctors,scientists,MEDIA,teachers,etc,all a product of a socialist education system. All indoctrinated in socialism,and applying it in their everyday lives.
    Never forget that the socialists have a dominance at nearly every university,and at most every public grade school.
    socialist indoctrination begins at an early age and continues throughout high school and college.
    THAT is what is really hurting America,and I’m not so sure we can overcome it,it may already be too late. it took a long time for the commies to become entrenched in education,and it will take a long time to weed them out,if it can be done at all.

    • Michael Durham

      god sucks. he’s a monumental, sadistic, mysterious pr|ck.

      i gleefully imagine stuffing yahweh right up satan’s @ss, every night. that is my “prayer”…it’s how i meditate.

      “god” loves watching the citizens of the U.S. being rotted, ruined, seduced and infiltrated by Leftists, and then, when these citizens weaken, stumble and fall, “he” then uses the Left to further punish them.

      What a monumentally sadistic, inscrutable pr|ck yahweh is.

      just kidding. there ain’t no “god” or “satan”. There can’t be. Not like this.

  • Richard Fontaine

    How do you sell 1,000,000 remaindered books?

    • Dan Knight

      LOL … you are judgment proof with respect to charges of ‘receiving stolen property.’

  • Libslayer

    “Professional parasite” nails it.
    That’s really all she is.
    Ditto her leering husband, ditto Obama and the Wookie, ditto the whole platoon of American hating elitists and other Marxist effluvium that infests the amoral cesspool known as the democrat party.
    Grasping conniving endlessly corrupt grifters every one.

  • Douglas J. Bender

    “Some leftists say that if you leave a glass of milk and a plate of
    cookies out on the table overnight along with a neatly spaced resume on
    recycled paper, elves will sneak in and create a job for you.”

    Now that’s just delicious humor!

  • I_Am_Me

    Great article. Very entertaining as well. As usual.

  • JERSEY FATMOUTH

    Leftists feel that without the assistance of gentle government overlords, nothing productive occurs. Is there a Leftist Island where we can quarantine them?

  • Sedated Princess

    Love it! If I could choose to have dinner with anyone in the world, Id choose you Daniel. You must be one of the most interesting writers I’ve ever come across.

  • Jack A. Napes

    “Trickle down economic” aptly describes…SOCIALISM – the state pays you according to “need” , but they need dachas, palaces, limos, etc., inside the Beltway.

    “Trickle up economics” describes Capitalism; everybody gets paid, then the owners get whatever, if anything, is left over.

  • ebonystone

    Better a trickle-down economy than one that doesn’t trickle at all.