Can Someone Explain To Me...

[johns624]

how Trump supposedly can fix the economy better than Clinton, yet Clinton is the pick of Wall Street and the bankers? Aren't they the ones in control?

[T. A. Gardner]

how Trump supposedly can fix the economy better than Clinton, yet Clinton is the pick of Wall Street and the bankers? Aren't they the ones in control?

It's simple. Trump may or may not fix the economy but he owes Wall Street no favors. Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street and if you really think she won't finance more government on the backs of the Middle Class you haven't been paying attention.

[Tuebor]

Economies fix themselves. Trump is less likely to take "decisive action" on the economy, whereas Hilary is chompin' at the bit to get her hands in the mix. So it is a matter of which would do less harm. As is so much in this election.

Tuebor

[T. A. Gardner]

Economies fix themselves. Trump is less likely to take "decisive action" on the economy, whereas Hilary is chompin' at the bit to get her hands in the mix. So it is a matter of which would do less harm. As is so much in this election.

Tuebor

Hillary. If she does what she says she wants to do it will tank the economy. Raising taxes on corporations and The Rich will do little to raise revenue, but it will cause those effected to change their behaviors to avoid the taxes. If that means moving money overseas, they'll do it. If it means firing people to get a decent bottom line, they'll do it.
What they won't do is simply pay more taxes when they can avoid doing so.

Hillary's energy policy will follow Obama's. That will be a disaster. I already determined that if electricity hits $ .30 a kWh, it'd be cheaper for me to run a diesel or natural gas generator to power my home than buy solar and wind energy from a power company.
Look at Germany's disaster with "renewable" energy if you want to see what Hillary's plan will do.

Hillary's economic plans are wealth redistribution and more government regulation of the economy, as if that's worked so well in the past.

I'd rather have the crap shoot of Trump than the certainty of a loser policy with Hillary.

[Half Pint John]

A positive, Clinton isn't her own advisor as Trump claims he is the only advisor he needs. Clinton has WJC and iirc the economy wasn't doing so bad under him.

[Bow]

how Trump supposedly can fix the economy better than Clinton, yet Clinton is the pick of Wall Street and the bankers? Aren't they the ones in control?

Easy....He will declare America bankrupt, tell the Chines he wont pay them back the money they loaned the US, settle for 10 cents on the dollar, declare himself Emperor, drag Hillary down Pennsylvania Ave in chains, invade another country and loot it, then declare America Great Again and dig out the Nuclear Codes just in case some body annoys him....and the world will be right again....you hope...

[Arnold J Rimmer]

It's simple. Trump may or may not fix the economy but he owes Wall Street no favors. Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street and if you really think she won't finance more government on the backs of the Middle Class you haven't been paying attention.

Exactly.

[JFKvsNixon]

It's simple. Trump may or may not fix the economy but he owes Wall Street no favors. Hillary is bought and paid for by Wall Street and if you really think she won't finance more government on the backs of the Middle Class you haven't been paying attention.

How can we sure that Trump doesn't owes Wall Street anything? There are lots of reports of Trumps business/property owing a sizeable amount of money.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

How can we sure that Trump doesn't owes Wall Street anything? There are lots of reports of Trumps business/property owing a sizeable amount of money.

I notice your 'lots of reports' claim comes without links...

And what is tis 'we' business? You aren't voting.

[T. A. Gardner]

A positive, Clinton isn't her own advisor as Trump claims he is the only advisor he needs. Clinton has WJC and iirc the economy wasn't doing so bad under him.

I'm not so sure that's a positive. The sort of advisors Hillary has "advising" her are the sort that got the US into the economic mess it's in...

[JFKvsNixon]

I notice your 'lots of reports' claim comes without links...

And what is tis 'we' business? You aren't voting.

Please excuse me, I was using the "royal we".

I do believe my point is a valid one, because its not an unreasonable expectation that Trump/his businesses do owe a sizeable amount of money to financial institutions around the world, including Wall Street. Unless you believe that Trump personally funds all his businesses and real estate ventures himself, and he does not have any mortgages on his real estate properties.

Obviously he would not be personally liable for the debts of his businesses but the value of those businesses, and in turn his personal wealth would drop considerable if they struggled to finance their debt.

I don't believe that there is anything intrinsically wrong with this situation, but it does suggest that the claim that Trump's self funding campaign means that he's free from any corrupting influence of "Wall Street" is just fanciful at best.

[Half Pint John]

I'm not so sure that's a positive. The sort of advisors Hillary has "advising" her are the sort that got the US into the economic mess it's in...

GW and his wars played no part in our spending. Right

[TactiKill J.]

how Trump supposedly can fix the economy better than Clinton, yet Clinton is the pick of Wall Street and the bankers? Aren't they the ones in control?

Depends on who you want the economy fixed for. Wall Street and bankers being behind Hillary, given how dirty and corrupt each are, isn't really a great endorsement from my perspective.

I don't think either will help the economy, both Trump and Clinton will help their selves first. Pick your poison.

[Cheetah772]

how Trump supposedly can fix the economy better than Clinton, yet Clinton is the pick of Wall Street and the bankers? Aren't they the ones in control?

That's easy enough. Self-preservation is your answer.

A lot of insurance companies saw the writing on the wall in 2008 when Obama was elected to the office. What they did do? Most got into bed with Obama, hoping to get both perks and waivers for the coming monstrosity of aptly named Obamacare. They hedged their bets and simply hoped for the best.

Of course, some fought back, but for most part, in order to survive financially, many insurance companies had little choice in working with Obama administration. That did not mean they wholly embraced Obama's healthcare policies.

Likewise, with Clinton, at least for many Fortune 500 companies, they can be assured of obtaining access to her and that she is willing to hear them out as long they fill her coffers. They know that Clinton needs them for economic reasons, and likewise, they need her for bailout reasons.

If Trump were to take office, nobody knows what he will do then. For some big companies, that's a huge risk to take on. They have to calculate which candidate is worth to take some risk on. It looks like Clinton is probably a safe bet for Wall Street given high probability of Clinton victory at the ballot in November.

[T. A. Gardner]

GW and his wars played no part in our spending. Right

What would you have done after 9/11? Swear to hunt down the criminals responsible and "bring them to justice" like the Obama administration has repeatedly said and failed at?