PolitiFact has examined the many statements of both Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton prior to tonight’s debate. To take this one with a grain of salt will require a trip to the feed store to carry out a salt block…
Tonight is the first Presidential debate of this election cycle and Andy Borowitz looks at how “The Donald” is working the refs in Trump Warns That Clinton Will Rig Debate By Using Facts…
“You just watch, folks,” Trump told supporters in Toledo, Ohio. “Crooked Hillary is going to slip in little facts all night long, and that’s how she’s going to try to rig the thing.”
“It’s a disgrace,” he added.
The billionaire drew a sharp contrast between himself and the former Secretary of State by claiming that his debate prep “involved no facts whatsoever.”
“I am taking a pledge not to use facts at the debate,” he said, raising his right hand. “I challenge Crooked Hillary to take that pledge.”
The hits on DT just keep on coming. Between not making charitable donations he claims and using his charity (foundation) to pay his personal legal bills and portraits the Republican nominee is being exposed as less than a kind-hearted philanthropist. This segment of the Rachel Maddow show is a shot to the solar plexus of dignity as The Donald gets busted once again using Veterans to further his political career. It would be funny if it wasn’t.
Remember how Donald Trump‘s bogus veterans group — whose chair claimed represents over 100,000 veterans — sold tickets for the GOP front runner’s eagerly anticipated foreign policy speech? Well, guess what?Rachel Maddow just exposed Veterans for a Strong America as consisting of just one guy, the supposed Chairman Joel Arends of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Oops.Not only that, it turns out Trump’s bogus veteran’s group also had its nonprofit status revoked by the IRS on August 10th…Not because it’s a fake group with no actual veterans in it, but because Arends hasn’t filed any tax returns in the past three years. But of course Arends, I mean Veterans for a Strong America, plans to challenge the IRS’s decision.Watch Rachel Maddow hilariously take down Donald Trump’s bogus veteran’s group on Wednesday’s edition of TRMS.
The current TORTUNE magazine features a look at teh economic plans of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in Is Hillary Good For Business?
As the race between Clinton and Trump tightens in the weeks before the election, many corporate leaders and other voters are asking the same thing: Who will be better for business? In a May cover story (see “Business the Trump Way”), Fortune took a deep dive into the real estate mogul’s record and his stated plans for the economy. And now we’re doing the same for Clinton. In this case, frankly, there is more of a public record to plumb. Business leaders, indeed, know more about Clinton than arguably any other candidate in recent memory, thanks to the quarter-century she has spent in the public glare, not to mention her personal outreach to many of them over that time. What gaps still exist they could fill by extrapolating from the first administration in which she served as a governing partner—her husband’s—which were surely the salad days for relations between Democrats and the private sector.
In her loftiest expectations, say insiders, Clinton’s presidency would open with a bang by securing congressional approval for a massive investment in restoring the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Clinton has called the state of disrepair of U.S. roads, bridges, airports, and railways a “national emergency,” and experts agree. The quality of American infrastructure slipped from fifth worldwide in 2002 to 16th last year, according to the Council on Foreign Relations—and that rank will likely slide as spending fails to keep up with maintenance needs and an ever-expanding demand for more capacity. Clinton is calling for investing $275 billion in the effort over five years, with most of that spending going directly into transportation and other projects, and another $25 billion in capital for an infrastructure bank that would provide loans (and guarantees) to private-sector builders. Fixing broken roads and bridges is part of the aim; the spending would also provide construction jobs and contribute to faster economic growth.
The precise contours of a deal remain unknown. But the plan would center on forcing home at a discounted tax rate the $2 trillion in overseas profits that American companies have stashed abroad. Depending on the rate, that alone could yield the revenue to fund the infrastructure spending. Policymakers couldn’t stop there, however. They’d need to solve the rest of a tax code Rubik’s Cube to keep businesses of all sizes from revolting. Big business without overseas profits would demand that corporate rates come down across the board—a move that would create winners and losers as negotiators scrubbed preferences in the code to pay for the rate reductions. Small businesses that pay taxes through the individual side of the code would then demand their own relief. And so on.
Even if Clinton could somehow satisfy all these competing business interests, the tax holiday at the heart of the deal would alienate liberals, who would almost certainly view it as an unacceptable giveaway to a handful of rich multinationals. “It’s critical that we end all tax subsidies for corporations to outsource jobs,” says Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO’s director of policy, noting that simply ending the companies’ ability to defer paying taxes on their offshore earnings would raise more than $500 billion, “money we need for infrastructure.”
The Nation takes a break from the two presidential candidates and interviews the man that almost made the finals - Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders…
But he isn’t satisfied. We sat down with Sanders in mid-September, just as he was putting the finishing touches on a book about his campaign that will be published after the election. The Vermont senator was in rare form, ripping into the media for its role in diminishing the political discourse, calling for the reform of the Democratic Party, and celebrating the fact that a new generation considers democratic socialism a viable political option. Hillary Clinton? They’ve got differences, but he’s for her. Donald Trump? Don’t get him started…
The Nation: Do you have anything you’d like to say up front?
Bernie Sanders: Very truthfully, I ended the campaign much more optimistic about the future of this country than when I began it. We met so many fantastic people who are prepared to think outside of the box; who understand that the establishment imposes limitations on what we think we can or cannot accomplish, and that we can do far, far more.
The Nation: When we sat here, more than two years ago, you were preparing to run for president. But you also said, “I’ve got to go out and talk to people for about a year and figure out whether they’re ready.” When you announced, had you determined that people really were ready? Or did you still worry that you were taking a big risk, at a point when you were polling at 3 percent?
Sanders: The first concern that I had, on a personal as well as political level, was that I did not want to run a campaign that would be counterproductive to the progressive vision that so many people in this country share, including readers of The Nation. If I ran a bad campaign—if I came out for Medicare for all and free tuition to public colleges and universities and progressive taxation, and then two months later I withdrew because the campaign wasn’t going anyplace—then what would the establishment say? “Bernie Sanders came up with all these progressive ideas, nobody listened to him, that’s not what America is about. These ideas are not the ideas of the United States.”
A failed campaign would reflect very badly on the vision that many of us share. That’s why I was motivated and determined to run a serious and strong campaign.
The Nation: Did you get something about what was going on in this country that the pundits didn’t?
Sanders: I believed from my heart of hearts that the ideas I was talking about were not courageous, radical, bold ideas. The ideas that I was talking about are what most Americans would support if they had the chance to hear these views, which they do not under normal circumstances. You could watch CNN for the next 14 years, and you’re not going to hear a discussion about the need for a single-payer health-care system. You’re not going to see a critique of the drug companies, and you’re not going to hear much discussion about income and wealth inequality. My view was that if we could get out to the American people, get the exposure, make the personal contacts, we would do well.
Fact Checkers Prove That Ninety One Percent of the Things Trump Says are False is a rough statistic that should impact the upcoming debates. Both the moderators and the voters should keep this in mind while watching “The Donald’s” performance…
Politicians running for president are graded by Politfact and the order runs in the way you would expect it to if you find yourself annoyed when Donald Trump is speaking. Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, is at the bottom of the list with a sad 9% of true or mostly true statements. Just 9% of the things Donald Trump says are mostly related to the truth.
Trump lies so much that in 2015, Politifact awarded him the Lie of the Year for numerous statements he made, because the team couldn’t pick the most egregious lie. Out of 77 statements checked, 76 of them were found to be mostly false to false to pants on fire lies.
The Trump truth chart via Politifact:
What does it mean that the man who tells the most lies is the most popular with the Republican base? This is a question I would be asking myself if I were a Republican strategist. The answer is not simple, in spite of the escalating finger pointing on the right. But I would direct them toward their propensity for denial, lack of accountability, and refusal to take responsibility for their own policies.
As part of our effort to cover the substance, not just the style of this year’s Presidential election we are highlighting the actual issues addressed by the candidates on their websites. We kicked this series off with the issue of Healthcare. Today we look at Paid Family Leave.
Too many moms have to go back to work just days after their babies are born. … And too many dads and parents of adopted children don’t get any paid leave at all. Neither do sons and daughters struggling to take care of their aging parents. None of this is fair to families.
Hillary, May 23, 2016
The United States is the only developed nation in the world with no guaranteed paid leave of any kind. Supporting families isn’t a luxury—it’s an economic necessity. It’s past time for our policies to catch up to the way families live and work today.
As president, Hillary will:
- Guarantee up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member, and up to 12 weeks of medical leave to recover from a serious illness or injury of their own.
- Ensure hardworking Americans get at least two-thirds of their current wages, up to a ceiling, while on leave.
- Impose no additional costs on businesses, including small businesses.
- Fund paid leave by making the wealthy pay their fair share—not by increasing taxes on working families. Hillary will pay for her paid leave plan with tax reforms that will ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.
Provide 6 weeks of maternity leave to new mothers
The United States is the only developed country that does not provide cash benefits for new mothers. According to the U.S. Department of Labor: “Only 12 percent of U.S. private sector workers have access to paid family leave through their employer”. Each year, 1.4 million women who work give birth without any paid leave from their employer.
The Trump plan will enhance Unemployment Insurance (UI) to include 6 weeks of paid leave for new mothers so that they can take time off of work after having a baby. This would triple the average 2 weeks of paid leave received by new mothers, which will benefit both the mother and the child.
Providing a temporary unemployment benefit for eight weeks through the UI system would cost $2.5 billion annually at an average benefit of $300 per week. This cost could be offset through changes in the existing UI system, such as by reducing the $5.6 billion per year in improper payments or implementing the proposals included in the administration’s FY 2017 budget regarding program integrity. Providing the benefit through UI—paid for through program savings—will not be financially onerous to small businesses when compared with mandating paid leave.
An analysis of a similar program in California has shown that unmarried, nonwhite, and non-college educated mothers receive the most benefit. The Trump plan for paid maternity leave will advance the interests of disadvantaged mothers without raising taxes.