I'll go over the highlights. She claimed that family incomes have decreased $1,300 in the past 6 years. New jobs pay on average 21% less than the jobs that have been lost. There has been a 4% increase in the percentage of workers falling below the poverty line. She claims that all of this is due to tax cuts for the rich and other bad economic policies.



The reality is that wages across the board have gone up. It isn't that her math is wrong, it is that she is manipulating it. The left is making a deal over the rich/poor gap. The top earners have increased their pay at a higher rate than the lower earners. They use this to claim that lower wages have gone down. This isn't true. All wages have gone up. And private business ownership has also gone up also, 3.7% a year since 2000 compared to about 2.3% from 1991 - 1999. Guess what Hillary, these business owners have caused that gap to increase.

She brought up Social Security and health care. "That's why they want to privatize Social Security and let individuals bear the risks. It's why their answer to the health care crisis is limited to creating health savings account, which allows the healthiest people to get the best deal, with little concern if the sickest get worse."

This is the woman who applauded the fact that Congress prevented Bush from implementing the Social Security plan that Bill Clinton suggested in 1998, interesting. Although if you really think about it, she applauded the fact that the democrats prevented reform, and the fact that they actually refused to offer any alternatives, but that is a long story that would take a few pages itself. Claiming that the health care answer is limited to health savings accounts makes me wonder if Hillary pays attention when she votes down a measure to allow small business owners to join together in an effort to get group discounts on employee health insurance.

She hammered Bush for his "unfair" corporate tax breaks. "First, I'm going to work to level the playing field and reduce the special breaks for big corporations."

And let's see what she said about shipping jobs overseas. "Second, let's once and for all get rid of the incentives for American companies to ship jobs and profits overseas. It is one thing for the marketplace to encourage overseas investment. It's another for our own tax code to do so."

What this lawyer who apparently never took an economics class failed to mention is the opinion of many economists regarding the best way to bring most of those jobs back to the USA. That would be the elimination of all corporate taxes. Corporations spend hundreds of billions each year not only paying taxes, but paying people to pay those taxes. If you cut them out of the picture, you reduce costs. Those costs get invested back into the corporations in the way of higher wages, increased employment, and lower costs for the good and services they provide. In other words, pay increases and your grocery bill decreases. Then all you need to do to help save the U.S. automobile industry is get rid of corrupt unions.

She hammered Bush for budget deficits. She failed to mention that the deficit is under the 40 year average compared to GDP, which is the way economists measure it. She also failed to mention that much of that money is going to fight wars against terrorist regimes that her husband refused to fight himself. Oh yeah, she also didn't mention how much is going to increase her favorite liberal causes like Medicare.

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an 'on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society.

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed."

I'm sure that is exactly what Chavez said just before he sent those tanks to the television stations.

"We need to open up CEO compensation to public scrutiny and public challenge and ensure that boards of directors are independent when determining CEO pay. And we need to update our regulations to confront the emerging problems in our sub-prime and private equity markets."

Sounds like Chavez again, maybe before he took over the oil companies and chased out most of the people in his country who have college degrees.

Free markets need to be free, not bogged down by government controls. What our economy needs is less intrusion by lawyers who get elected. Doesn't it frighten anyone besides myself that we have so many lawyers in Washington, and so few economists? I'm tired of lawyers making economic policies and trying so hard to tell companies how much they need to pay their people.

Now I would take a moment to look up the transcript for Obama's recent speeches, but that man is so blatantly stupid that reading them makes me cry. So I'll leave you all to go find them yourselves. But please, try to get past the hype.