Please verify

Blaze Media
Watch LIVE

Private Job Creation, Trickle-Down Economics and Other Tall Tales


This is what happens when Hillary Clinton runs for president. See you in 2016...

Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Molly Riley)

Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2016.

How do I know this? Because if she wasn’t, she wouldn’t say something this stupid in public:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that its corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

Granted, she may say things this fantastical at dinner parties where guests aren’t paying $30k to get in, but if she blurts them out in public, on a stage, when cameras are rolling, at a political event which then gets spread around the internet like hand-sanitizer in New York City, then it’s a clear sign that she is definitely, absolutely and without a doubt running for president.

Good luck.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses supporters of Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley during a Coakley campaign event at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston, Friday, Oct. 24, 2014. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia) AP Photo/Stephan Savoia Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses supporters of Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley during a Coakley campaign event at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston, Friday, Oct. 24, 2014. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia) AP Photo/Stephan Savoia

The fact, at least in Hillary’s mind, that private business does not create jobs must come as quite a surprise to a number of people.

Most notably will be Hillary’s own accountant, undoubtedly familiar with the nearly $5 million she has raked in from her numerous speaking engagements over the past year and a half. Some of those engagements include Fidelity (insert joke here), the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and Goldman Sachs…twice. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone pays you money to do something, that would constitute a job.

It would also come as a big surprise to both her husband and her daughter, both of whom have been employed by corporations either through speeches or direct employment. How shocked will they be to learn that the $104.9 million he has earned was just a ruse!

President Barack Obama will also be left scratching his head. After all, if corporations and businesses do not create jobs, then the 55 months of private sector job growth he is endlessly touting is something of a mystery.

Yes, when the dust settles after this bombshell has been dropped, there will be many who are left befuddled, who will question the very foundations of economics that have been true and understood for centuries.

But why stop there? If corporations and businesses don’t create jobs, then what is the point of getting an education? Clinton’s upcoming campaign will undoubtedly feature some kind of investment in education; an investment in our collective future. There will be sweeping and emotional sentiments about giving our kids a shot and winning the future through better education and being able to compete in a global economy.

Why? Why bother educating yourself for jobs that clearly are not being created?

Someone should tell the global economy that it doesn’t exist. Someone should tell all those children and the future children that college is a scam, boys and girls! Someone should tell Hillary that she doesn’t need to work so hard on education now that businesses aren’t creating jobs.

Thankfully though, her pearls have not been cast before swine, and her wisdom and knowledge has trickled down to the unwashed masses below. If only the same could be said for prosperity…

To me, the point of trickle-down failure is completely unnecessary if businesses don’t even create jobs. Then again, she could have been talking to common folk and felt the need to underscore her point.

Reading into her statements, one would have to assume that though the private sector is a miserable failure, both in job creation and in wealth distribution, the public sector would be far more successful at both, which leads me to this question:

If trickle-down doesn’t work, then why would it work if the government was simply substituted in as the source?

It’s still trickle-down, it’s just coming from Washington rather than business owners and investors. Are we to assume that prosperity would freely flow our way if Washington, the place where you can’t even build a higher fence without eight layers of bureaucracy, was in charge of the spigot?

Further, if trickle-down doesn’t work, then those who have the wealth are not doing any good at all. We must assume that concentrations of wealth in the hands of the richest Americans are doing nothing for the rest of us, and if given to the government instead, would benefit us all far more.

But the Clinton’s are wealthy. In fact, they are incredibly wealthy and are a highly concentrated source at that. Clearly she should follow her own advice, give all her money to the government she hopes to soon rule over and stop waiting for her wealth to trickle-down because hey, that just doesn’t work.

If we are lucky (read: stupid) enough to elect her in 2016, we can only hope that she will forcefully remove the wealth from the hands of a small percentage and put it in the hands of the much smaller, tiny percentage that control the levers of federal bureaucracy. This would also have the wondrous side effect of removing their power, because as you know, rich people have too much political influence, and return it to the rightful heirs – the federal government. Power to the people!

To recap, businesses and corporations don’t create jobs, unless you are a Clinton or one of Obama’s talking points. Education is a huge concern and focus of Hillary Clinton, she understands your plight, but ultimately it’s a total waste because no one is creating jobs.

Trickle-down economics totally doesn’t work unless it trickles down from the government, and wealthy Americans don’t do anyone any good, except for the Clinton’s because their massive wealth is different. And while the trickle-down theory doesn’t work at all in economics, it will absolutely work with power as it trickles down from on high in Washington.

Got all that?

Ultimately, this is all about politics. We all know this. Hillary Clinton is simply trying to position herself ahead of the 2016 election so that she can out-communist Elizabeth Warren and any other populist challenger who would paint her as the wealthy elitist that she actually is, not that many of them should be throwing stones from their glassy homes.

This is what happens when a politician is unmoored from any actual beliefs or principles and instead rides the political wind to personal power and importance. This is what happens when Americans lose their basic economic footing and instead accept this drivel as legitimate truth.

This is what happens when Hillary Clinton runs for president.

See you in 2016…

For other articles and writings by Darrell, please visit the Milk Crate.

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Most recent

Commentary: Enough with the Justice Department ‘independence’ myth

All Articles