Obama: Clinton 'steady,' Trump 'not fit in any way' to lead

KATHLEEN HENNESSEYSeptember 14, 2016

ricky l3 seconds ago

Obama: Clinton 'steady,' Trump 'not fit in any way' to lead.

Branding Donald Trump as promoting "a dark vision," the president said, "They're not offering serious solutions — they're just fanning resentment, and blame, and anger, and hate."

---

The above is a true assessment of what is happening to Donald Trump campaign.

ricky l2 seconds ago

If Donald Trump win, there will be 2 Power Centres - operating against one another - in the US Government, the White House.

And in the Congress and Senate - another 2 Power Centres.

--

Whatever Donald Trump say --- the White House will not honour as they are deem silly, not workable, devoid of facts.

The White House will issue mostly contrary statement to Donald Trump as official statement - and contradict Donald Trump's statement.

Thus in White House, in US Government - there will be 2 Power Centres that contradict one another.

---

And then in Congress and Senate - there will be again another 2 Power Centres - the Democrat and the Republicans.

---

If Donald Trump is ever be a President --- the US Government will be in a complete "deadlocked" and a lot of "confusing statement" will be send out to the Public as well as to Foreign Countries and Foreign Government.

Americans blame Washington gridlock for slow economic growth: study
Posted 15 Sep 2016 11:25


An iron worker leans on a safety fence to look at the New York skyline after watching a crane lift the final piece of the spire to the top of the One World Trade Center in New York May 10, 2013. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

BOSTON: Americans blame political gridlock in Washington for the country's declining economic competitiveness and hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible, a Harvard Business School study released on Wednesday found.


The study noted that U.S. gross domestic product grew at a rate of about 2 percent since 2000, well below the 3 to 4 percent average in the prior half-century. It said a range of factors including a complicated corporate tax code, tangled immigration system and aging roads contribute to the slow growth.

The study contends that factors including a growing wealth gap, declines in productivity growth and a rise in the number of working-age people neither employed nor seeking jobs show that the U.S. economy is becoming less competitive.

A majority of the school's alumni surveyed said they believed the U.S. political system was hurting the economy. That view crossed party lines, with 82 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents and 56 percent of Democrats agreeing.

"Only a minority of members of either party felt that their own party was acting in a way that supported economic growth," said Jan Rivkin, a professor at Harvard Business School and co-author of the report.

The survey did not ask whether respondents preferred Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump or Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Some respondents worry that neither candidate for the White House could overcome gridlock in Washington, Rivkin said, adding "Anyone elected into the current system would face pressure toward paralysis."

A concurrent survey of the general public found smaller, but still significant, numbers blaming the political system for a languishing U.S. economy.

Some 49 percent of Republicans, 38 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats at large said politics were hurting growth.

The study contends partisan gridlock is preventing the federal government from tackling structural problems facing the U.S. economy, and suggested steps to address that gridlock. Among them: Changing rules that allow lawmakers to "gerrymander" districts to ensure one party's dominance; reforming campaign finance; setting term limits in the House and Senate, and eliminating party control of the federal legislative process.

The study comes a day after the Census Bureau reported median household income surged 5.2 percent last year to US$56,500, its highest since 2007.

The surveys included responses from 4,807 alumni of Harvard Business School from May 3 through June 6 and 1,048 members of the general public polled June 10-26. The public survey had a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points, margin of error does not apply to the alumni survey as it was not a random sample.

(Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Andrew Hay)

- Reuters