Trump-Clinton spar over economic plans

[tres borrachos]

Report: Clinton's jobs push as senator fell flat, helped donors | Fox News

I didn't ask for a link to Fox News. I asked you what jobs a US Senator is supposed to create.

 

[roughdraft274]

Trump has no economic plans. Hillary on the other hand has two. (1) Repeating and enhancing Obama's failed plans, and (2) making sure that at least some of the money sticks to the hands of Bill, Chelsea, and the Clinton Foundation slush fund. Last time they were in the White House they stole the china and furniture.

Given the choices, I'll take the unknown Trump.

1. The clintons didn't steal any furniture or china from the whitehouse. This has been gone over numerous times over the years and it's just wrong. There were questions over what constitutes a gift when a Clinton friend would give them something, did it belong to the Clintons or the whitehouse. Only a handful of the things they took did the original donator/giftgiver come back and say "that was intended for the whiehouse, not the clintons", but as soon as the clintons caught wind of it, they either reimbursed the governemnt or returned items. And even after they were gone, the government gave back to the clintons items that they had returned after concluding that yes in fact they did belong to the clintons.

Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact

2. The clinton foundation is a very highly rated charity and your accusations of it being a "slush fund" are just petty partisan clap trap.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

 

[Conservative]

I didn't ask for a link to Fox News. I asked you what jobs a US Senator is supposed to create.

The link gives you the legislation that Hillary proposed and the results. stop buying the source ignoring the content as that is what liberals do

 

[tres borrachos]

The link gives you the legislation that Hillary proposed and the results. stop buying the source ignoring the content as that is what liberals do

So you can't answer for yourself, you need Fox News to help you. You can't say "The role of a US Senator is to bring x number of jobs to his constituents by doing y".

How many jobs did Ted Cruz personally create in Texas? How about John Cornyn?

 

[Conservative]

So you can't answer for yourself, you need Fox News to help you. You can't say "The role of a US Senator is to bring x number of jobs to his constituents by doing y".

How many jobs did Ted Cruz personally create in Texas? How about John Cornyn?

So you think that the legislation offered and the results generated has nothing to do with the Senator's results? Hillary has proclaimed she is the most experienced candidate and yet supporters cannot offer any positive accomplishments generated in any of her positions. I call that simply punching your ticket in a position not generating results.

I posted the link because it gives the legislation and the results. What would you like me to post?

As for Cornyn or Cruz, I would do the same thing if they were the nominee for President. I don't normally support a Senator without looking at what they did as Senator. Tell me what Hillary did that was positive for the people of NY. She claims she is going to create jobs, where is the legislation proposed that did that?

 

[tres borrachos]

So you think that the legislation offered and the results generated has nothing to do with the Senator's results? Hillary has proclaimed she is the most experienced candidate and yet supporters cannot offer any positive accomplishments generated in any of her positions. I call that simply punching your ticket in a position not generating results.

I posted the link because it gives the legislation and the results. What would you like me to post?

As for Cornyn or Cruz, I would do the same thing if they were the nominee for President. I don't normally support a Senator without looking at what they did as Senator. Tell me what Hillary did that was positive for the people of NY. She claims she is going to create jobs, where is the legislation proposed that did that?

She was a US Senator. She was not the Governor of New York responsible for the state's economy, and she was not a businesswoman. You are making the argument that jobs are supposed to be created by politicians. Not sure why you think you're a "conservative". I never met a conservative in my life who believes that it's the responsibility of US Senators to create jobs in the states they represent.

Hillary is experienced, whether you want to accept it or not. She was a Senator in the US Senate. She was the Secretary of State. She was responsible for a staff of 70,000 people and a budget of almost $70 billion. Trump has no experience at any of those things.

If you are so concerned about the residents of the state of New York, why don't you email Mr. Trump and ask him why he outsourced all of those jobs to China when he could have sent them all to upstate New York. Businessmen are responsible for creating jobs, NOT the government. As any real conservative knows.

 

[Conservative]

She was a US Senator. She was not the Governor of New York responsible for the state's economy, and she was not a businesswoman. You are making the argument that jobs are supposed to be created by politicians. Not sure why you think you're a "conservative". I never met a conservative in my life who believes that it's the responsibility of US Senators to create jobs in the states they represent.

Hillary is experienced, whether you want to accept it or not. She was a Senator in the US Senate. She was the Secretary of State. She was responsible for a staff of 70,000 people and a budget of almost $70 billion. Trump has no experience at any of those things.

If you are so concerned about the residents of the state of New York, why don't you email Mr. Trump and ask him why he outsourced all of those jobs to China when he could have sent them all to upstate New York. Businessmen are responsible for creating jobs, NOT the government. As any real conservative knows.

Look, not sure what you are trying to do but what I did was point out the legislation that Hillary generated for the people of NY and what it accomplished. That legislation showed very poor judgment as usual and benefited her contributors more than it benefited the people of NY. Now she wants to people to believe as President she is going to create jobs. That ignores Hillary's record.

So tell me when Trump created projects in other countries around the world was he supposed to ship American workers there to do the job? You claim Trump outsourced jobs, prove it?

Businessmen do indeed create jobs, they increase individual net worth, they increase economic activity and that is something Hillary has never done. You want to claim Hillary was experienced because of positions held never about actual results generated. Most of the jobs Hillary held were political appointed jobs and the one job where she was elected shows very little if anything positive. Did she balance her state department budget? What did we get for the money that department spent? Yes, that was the size of the department and the number of employees, so what? What were the results????? I know you aren't a Hillary supporter but stop buying the rhetoric.

 

[jimbo]

1. The clintons didn't steal any furniture or china from the whitehouse. This has been gone over numerous times over the years and it's just wrong. There were questions over what constitutes a gift when a Clinton friend would give them something, did it belong to the Clintons or the whitehouse. Only a handful of the things they took did the original donator/giftgiver come back and say "that was intended for the whiehouse, not the clintons", but as soon as the clintons caught wind of it, they either reimbursed the governemnt or returned items. And even after they were gone, the government gave back to the clintons items that they had returned after concluding that yes in fact they did belong to the clintons.

Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact

2. The clinton foundation is a very highly rated charity and your accusations of it being a "slush fund" are just petty partisan clap trap.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Wrong, the Clintons removed furniture not belonging to them from the White House. Part of it was returned, part of it was settled with a cash payment. Regardless of the spin, the Hillary shrug, and the "it was all just an accidental mistake, the fact remains that the items were taken that were not their property.

The Clinton foundation has also been gone over hundreds of times. But it returns less than 10% of its receipts to charity.

 

[roughdraft274]

Wrong, the Clintons removed furniture not belonging to them from the White House. Part of it was returned, part of it was settled with a cash payment. Regardless of the spin, the Hillary shrug, and the "it was all just an accidental mistake, the fact remains that the items were taken that were not their property.

This is an overblown reaction. The gifts given to the first family often cause confusion and trouble, and this isn't unique to the clintons. For eample, Reagan was investigated by the IRS in 1989, looking in to gifts given to them while in the white house, since the gifts were either given to the whitehouse or to them, and if it was to them they'd need to pay taxes on the gifts etc. So this isn't exactly unique to the Clintons.

The Clinton foundation has also been gone over hundreds of times. But it returns less than 10% of its receipts to charity.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

According to charity watch, the number is 88% which is excellent for a charity of this type. Whey you hear "they only give 10%" you are hearing numbers from conservative media retards who added up the charitable grants that were assigned to other charities through the Clinton foundation. But the clinton foundation doesn't just distribute money to other charities. They take the money and go in to parts of the world and set up farms and teach the native people to farm, they build water wells, replant forests etc. etc. The idiots on your side have also been dishonest when talking about things like travel. They'll claim that the foundation spends something like 20% of the budget on travel, and then make it seem like the Clintons are just travelling the globe for free, when in reality a huge portion of the travel budget is program directors and people actually travelling to the places where they are doing this work, because they have to actually get there before the work can be done.

So to give you a good idea, lets say a local church fundraised ten thousand dollars for charity work. Of that ten thousand, the wrote a thousand dollar check to a local battered womans shelter to help that non profit organization. Then they took the other 9000 and bought clothes and distributed the clothes to the homeless during the winter months and gave coats to needy children. If you look at this the same way that conservatives are judging the clinton foundation, you'd say that they only used 10% of the money for charitable giving. See how utterly dishonest this is?

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

To bolster its case, CARLY for America noted that the Clinton Foundation spent 12 percent of its revenue on travel and conferences and 20 percent of its revenue on salaries. That’s true. But the Form 990 specifically breaks out those travel, conference and salary expenses that are used for “program service expenses” versus those that are used for management or fundraising purposes.
For example, nearly 77 percent of the $8.4 million spent on travel in 2013 went toward program services; 3.4 percent went to “management and general expenses”; and about 20 percent went to fundraising.

Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”

 

[Conservative]

She was a US Senator. She was not the Governor of New York responsible for the state's economy, and she was not a businesswoman. You are making the argument that jobs are supposed to be created by politicians. Not sure why you think you're a "conservative". I never met a conservative in my life who believes that it's the responsibility of US Senators to create jobs in the states they represent.

Hillary is experienced, whether you want to accept it or not. She was a Senator in the US Senate. She was the Secretary of State. She was responsible for a staff of 70,000 people and a budget of almost $70 billion. Trump has no experience at any of those things.

If you are so concerned about the residents of the state of New York, why don't you email Mr. Trump and ask him why he outsourced all of those jobs to China when he could have sent them all to upstate New York. Businessmen are responsible for creating jobs, NOT the government. As any real conservative knows.

I know you aren't a Hillary supporter so please tell us who your "perfect" candidate is and why? Seems everyone here is against Trump but really cannot explain why and I am obviously against Hillary and have explained why. Actual data and facts don't seem to resonate to partisans who simply see the D and ignore the actual results.

As I have stated many times, Trump wasn't my choice but he is the nominee and I will wade through fire to do my best to expose Hillary for the incompetent and opportunist/liar that she is.

Noticed that all I get from the anti Trump crowd is rhetoric, nothing of substance as to what actually he will do as President in the confines of the Constitution. Seems to me that more of the same is what people want so they can continue to complain about the results. You don't get more of the same with Trump, you get true change, probably more than most people truly want. The entitlement crowd is going to die hard.

 

[Conservative]

This is an overblown reaction. The gifts given to the first family often cause confusion and trouble, and this isn't unique to the clintons. For eample, Reagan was investigated by the IRS in 1989, looking in to gifts given to them while in the white house, since the gifts were either given to the whitehouse or to them, and if it was to them they'd need to pay taxes on the gifts etc. So this isn't exactly unique to the Clintons.




https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

According to charity watch, the number is 88% which is excellent for a charity of this type. Whey you hear "they only give 10%" you are hearing numbers from conservative media retards who added up the charitable grants that were assigned to other charities through the Clinton foundation. But the clinton foundation doesn't just distribute money to other charities. They take the money and go in to parts of the world and set up farms and teach the native people to farm, they build water wells, replant forests etc. etc. The idiots on your side have also been dishonest when talking about things like travel. They'll claim that the foundation spends something like 20% of the budget on travel, and then make it seem like the Clintons are just travelling the globe for free, when in reality a huge portion of the travel budget is program directors and people actually travelling to the places where they are doing this work, because they have to actually get there before the work can be done.

So to give you a good idea, lets say a local church fundraised ten thousand dollars for charity work. Of that ten thousand, the wrote a thousand dollar check to a local battered womans shelter to help that non profit organization. Then they took the other 9000 and bought clothes and distributed the clothes to the homeless during the winter months and gave coats to needy children. If you look at this the same way that conservatives are judging the clinton foundation, you'd say that they only used 10% of the money for charitable giving. See how utterly dishonest this is?

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

Look, we all know the purpose of the foundation, now can you provide concrete positive results as to what that foundation did with all the money to justify its existence. The Charter is one thing, the actions are another. How do you feel about the claims of selling influence to the state department for foundation contributions?

 

[roughdraft274]

Look, we all know the purpose of the foundation

And that would be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Patrickt]

Neither the self-described "King of Debt" nor the fake southerner poor-mouthing about being "dead broke" are going to do anything for the economy except make it worse...and themselves richer.

 

[Conservative]

And that would be?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The purpose of the foundation is to take care of the under privileged and support people in need. Please provide me the results of all that spending?

 

[roughdraft274]

The purpose of the foundation is to take care of the under privileged and support people in need. Please provide me the results of all that spending?

I've already linked a politics fact article that details spending and charity watch which lays out the money taken in vs the money spent on charitable purposes. It's extremely transparent which makes lies about the foundation that much more ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tres borrachos]

I know you aren't a Hillary supporter so please tell us who your "perfect" candidate is and why? Seems everyone here is against Trump but really cannot explain why and I am obviously against Hillary and have explained why. Actual data and facts don't seem to resonate to partisans who simply see the D and ignore the actual results.

As I have stated many times, Trump wasn't my choice but he is the nominee and I will wade through fire to do my best to expose Hillary for the incompetent and opportunist/liar that she is.

Noticed that all I get from the anti Trump crowd is rhetoric, nothing of substance as to what actually he will do as President in the confines of the Constitution. Seems to me that more of the same is what people want so they can continue to complain about the results. You don't get more of the same with Trump, you get true change, probably more than most people truly want. The entitlement crowd is going to die hard.

Are you for real? I've made many posts on here explaining why I'm against Trump, why I would never vote for Trump, and why I can't believe anyone would consider voting for Trump. If you want to vote for a lifelong, liberal Democrat who as recently as 8 years ago believed Hillary Clinton to be an honest woman, the best Secretary of State ever, and the most qualified to be President, then do it. If you oppose Hillary Clinton, then do it. I don't have to justify to "us" why I don't support either of these frauds. Votes have to be earned, and "he's not Hillary!" isn't a reason to earn my vote.

 

[tres borrachos]

Look, not sure what you are trying to do but what I did was point out the legislation that Hillary generated for the people of NY and what it accomplished. That legislation showed very poor judgment as usual and benefited her contributors more than it benefited the people of NY. Now she wants to people to believe as President she is going to create jobs. That ignores Hillary's record.

So tell me when Trump created projects in other countries around the world was he supposed to ship American workers there to do the job? You claim Trump outsourced jobs, prove it?

Businessmen do indeed create jobs, they increase individual net worth, they increase economic activity and that is something Hillary has never done. You want to claim Hillary was experienced because of positions held never about actual results generated. Most of the jobs Hillary held were political appointed jobs and the one job where she was elected shows very little if anything positive. Did she balance her state department budget? What did we get for the money that department spent? Yes, that was the size of the department and the number of employees, so what? What were the results????? I know you aren't a Hillary supporter but stop buying the rhetoric.

I "claim" Trump outsourced jobs? Are you saying you have no idea that the manufacturing for his companies' goods are done in China?

Google it.

If you don't want to vote for Hillary, don't vote for Hillary. If you want to pretend she just fell off the turnip truck yesterday and has no experience for the job she's seeking, go ahead. That's partisan nonsense and I don't do it. In 2008 and beyond Donald Trump said she was the most qualified person for the job. He said she was an honest woman. He said she was the best Secretary of State ever. But I don't notice you questioning him. I guess that "R" he decided to put after his name, the one that clear thinking people know doesn't belong there, is good enough for you.

 

[Conservative]

I've already linked a politics fact article that details spending and charity watch which lays out the money taken in vs the money spent on charitable purposes. It's extremely transparent which makes lies about the foundation that much more ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I asked for actual results from the Foundation not what the Foundation says it spent and where?

 

[Conservative]

Are you for real? I've made many posts on here explaining why I'm against Trump, why I would never vote for Trump, and why I can't believe anyone would consider voting for Trump. If you want to vote for a lifelong, liberal Democrat who as recently as 8 years ago believed Hillary Clinton to be an honest woman, the best Secretary of State ever, and the most qualified to be President, then do it. If you oppose Hillary Clinton, then do it. I don't have to justify to "us" why I don't support either of these frauds. Votes have to be earned, and "he's not Hillary!" isn't a reason to earn my vote.

No what you do is take yourself way to seriously but then again you ignore reality. You have a choice, stay home, vote for a third party and spend the next four years whining and complaining about the results or working from within. Tell me exactly what Trump proposals do you disagree with? You listen to the rhetoric and ignore the substance. Reagan was a liberal Democrat too but that fact escapes you. There are a lot of people who change parties over time. I find it quite interesting how Trump has alienated the elites in both parties yet for some reason you believe he remains a liberal.

I know I don't have to justify anything to you nor would I but I will do whatever I can to keep Hillary out of the WH as that is the alternative we have today. People like you simply don't get it and probably never will.

 

[Conservative]

I "claim" Trump outsourced jobs? Are you saying you have no idea that the manufacturing for his companies' goods are done in China?

Google it.

If you don't want to vote for Hillary, don't vote for Hillary. If you want to pretend she just fell off the turnip truck yesterday and has no experience for the job she's seeking, go ahead. That's partisan nonsense and I don't do it. In 2008 and beyond Donald Trump said she was the most qualified person for the job. He said she was an honest woman. He said she was the best Secretary of State ever. But I don't notice you questioning him. I guess that "R" he decided to put after his name, the one that clear thinking people know doesn't belong there, is good enough for you.

Stop believing what you hear and get the facts, how many jobs has Trump created in China. Trump laid out a very specific economic plan so if you care to discuss that let's have at it but to talk about your fantasies about Trump are irrelevant. I don't give a damn what Trump said 8 years ago but what he plans on doing for the country today and what he accomplished in the private sector but better yet how he alienated the elites of both parties. Tell me specifically which plans Trump has proposed that you are against?

 

[tres borrachos]

No what you do is take yourself way to seriously but then again you ignore reality. You have a choice, stay home, vote for a third party and spend the next four years whining and complaining about the results or working from within. Tell me exactly what Trump proposals do you disagree with? You listen to the rhetoric and ignore the substance. Reagan was a liberal Democrat too but that fact escapes you. There are a lot of people who change parties over time. I find it quite interesting how Trump has alienated the elites in both parties yet for some reason you believe he remains a liberal.

I know I don't have to justify anything to you nor would I but I will do whatever I can to keep Hillary out of the WH as that is the alternative we have today. People like you simply don't get it and probably never will.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson. And once again, I won't repeat what I already said about Trump. I don't support him. If you want to send a dangerous liberal to the White House, then do it with a smile on your face. I won't participate.

 

[tres borrachos]

Stop believing what you hear and get the facts, how many jobs has Trump created in China. Trump laid out a very specific economic plan so if you care to discuss that let's have at it but to talk about your fantasies about Trump are irrelevant. I don't give a damn what Trump said 8 years ago but what he plans on doing for the country today and what he accomplished in the private sector but better yet how he alienated the elites of both parties. Tell me specifically which plans Trump has proposed that you are against?

Stop it. If you want to make arguments about the infrastructure of Donald Trump's companies, then tell him to release his tax returns and let us have a look at what he's doing inside his business. And unlike you, I'm not sitting here saying I need a politician to do things for the country. I'm a conservative. We don't look to the President to take care of us.

 

[Cyrylek]

I don't know about "plans" - so far we had speeches kinda-sorta about economics. To distill: Both Trump and Clinton pledge to (a) spend, spend, spend (the national debt is not an issue anymore, apparently), and (b) time-travel to the 1960s via starting idiotic trade wars.

Once again, I am supporting Hillary, if it is either-or, because there is virtually no chance that she actually means it (mendacious - yes, an idiot - no). With the Donald - all bets are off.

 

[roughdraft274]

I asked for actual results from the Foundation not what the Foundation says it spent and where?

Way to completely change the topic. The claim I was originally responding to was an ignorant claim that it spends less than 10% of it's money on charitable purposes, which I'm assuming you agree is false?

As for the results, go do some research and find out for yourself rather than ask a random person on a forum whom was talking about a completely different thing to do your research for you, mkay? The wikipedia article seems nice and long.

 

[upsideguy]

Trump, Clinton spar over economic plans in dueling speeches | Fox News

Is there anyone here that can point to actual jobs created by Hillary Clinton or any evidence that she has any economic and leadership skills? How does anyone trust a word she says?

Bigger govt, more spending, massive debt, massive entitlements, yes, more of the status quo for the Clinton supporters

Just to level set this; those attributes could also be applied to the Reagan and GW Bush administrations. Moreover, the buffoon that currently carries the Republican banner has not offered anything that would have a rational person thinking but more of the same. You seem to be operating from this fantasy that Republicans reduce government, lower spending, lower debt and curtail entitlements, but there is no recent evidence of this.