Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v3

[Diamond Jim]

Good ol' voodoo economics. Republicans always fail to mention that Reagan tripled the debt and was forced into big tax hikes because of it.

 

[DevilsLettuce]

Trump has the masses fooled by cloaking Reaganomics with a veneer of populism by diverting attention to immigration and terrorism.

He's unbalanced and thin-skinned. He is weak as fuck against terrorism IMO. He doesn't understand geopolitics.

 

[Bloodworth]

Right on. The race card is getting old. It's 2016 and the left over violent groups are running out of excuses.

People are starting to see right through it, especially the bias media.

Trump needs to remind blacks that illegals have pushed them out of towns and jobs.
Their vote is more powerful then an illegals.
A vote for Trump will bring them back up the totem pole

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Cutting rich people's taxes is the GOP's raison detre though. There are myriad views in the GOP on immigration, trade, gay marriage, and climate change but they all agree that rich people should pay less taxes.

 

[DevilsLettuce]

I dunno why Trump didn't bring up the housing crisis in 2007 when Clinton brought up trickle down, it was such an obvious point that Trump could have thrown right back in her face

Lol - wtf are you talking about

 

[lecter]

I may eat my own words but I could imagine that even if the debates are somewhat similar to the first one, they won't benefit Clinton as much as people think (or hope in most cases).
Since polls are extremely close that may still be enough to win for Hillary if Trump doesn't improve at all, though.

 

[TheStruggle]

Cutting rich people's taxes is the GOP's raison detre though. There are myriad views in the GOP on immigration, trade, gay marriage, and climate change but they all agree that rich people should pay less taxes.

Democrats believe Government creates jobs not businesses, then they wonder why our jobs go overseas to duck the higher taxes that they created.

 

[Rational Poster]

Yeah I imagine it would be hard to get excited over a Republican advocating the exact same economic message as every other Republican for the last 40 years.

Trickle down just puts money in the pockets of the rich. It doesn't do anything for the middle class. So keep supporting this so we can have the same failed economic policies of Bush

This is the whole problem with the trickle down idea.

It doesn't make any fucking sense.

Cutting the taxes on the wealthy doesn't do DICK. There really aren't that many wealthy people so giving a few people more money isn't going to do very much short or long term. "Oh but if I only had 15 million dollars a year instead of 13 million dollars a year, then I'd really start producing jobs!!"

They're already heavily invested in corporations and investment funds so they essentially have far less personal income than wealth in other sources..

These people aren't going to be starting companies and hiring out of their personal income. Maybe they'll buy a boat or something, but they'll most just use their personal income to pay for their quality of life while all their money is balled up with other money to make more money.

Trickle down through personal income tax cuts is a sham. A joke. A fantasy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm going to give Trump some pass here. He never really laid out any idea of how to bring those companies back other than taxes and renegotiating our trade deals. He can't really talk about renegotiation because he doesn't want to tell the enemy what we're going to do and besides that requires actually sitting down with the other world leaders and horse trading.

So that only leaves taxes and deregulation for a pulpit like a debate. His problem is that he doesn't lay out which regulations he's planning to target. He'd have plenty of power over that from the executive branch since many reg's are agency specific and he could, presumably, change them without Congress.

The problem with the "bringing the jobs back" thing is that it was flawed from the start. We've been adding jobs for six years, and we're very close to full employment. Whatever negative impact there was from opening up trade happened a long time ago and isn't continuing as an issue.

He also confused a VAT with a tariff, which was embarrassing (or would be if the audience were more sophisticated) and claimed that China is devaluing its currency, which it stopped doing a long time ago (and is now the opposite of what it's now doing).

The bottom line is that he really doesn't have a plausible plan for raising middle-class wages, and there's no indication that it's even something he's thought about. Clinton's answer showed that it's something she's thought about and planned for, but it was stuff that would be pretty marginal, too. I'd like to see a candidate say: "Look, Lester, when we're in a demand-driven recession, we have a pretty good idea of what we have to do to get people back to work and wages rising, but at all other times, no one really knows how policy can increase market wages. What I'm going to do is make sure we do the right thing when there's a recession we fight it with policy tools that have been shown to work and make sure that people--children, the disabled, the elderly, the short-term unemployed, etc.--who don't make market income are taken care of."

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Good ol' voodoo economics. Republicans always fail to mention that Reagan tripled the debt and was forced into big tax hikes because of it.

Reagan still ended up with a net tax cut after his two terms.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Cutting rich people's taxes is the GOP's raison detre though. There are myriad views in the GOP on immigration, trade, gay marriage, and climate change but they all agree that rich people should pay less taxes.

What's interesting is that that's true of politicians, pundits, think tanks, and donors, but not of voters. The last I saw, a plurality of self-described Republicans wanted *higher* taxes on the rich, and only a fifth said that the rich paid too much.

 

[panamaican]

The problem with the "bringing the jobs back" thing is that it was flawed from the start. We've been adding jobs for six years, and we're very close to full employment. Whatever negative impact there was from opening up trade happened a long time ago and isn't continuing as an issue.

Let's not overstate things. We're close to statistical full employment...while the labor force participation rate is still dropping. And the employment to population ratio is still below pre-recession levels.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Let's not overstate things. We're close to statistical full employment...while the labor force participation rate is still dropping. And the employment to population ratio is still below pre-recession levels.

LFP isn't still dropping. Seems to have leveled off (the long-term trend is still going to be down because of the aging population, but that's been balanced by falls in discouraged workers). And discouraged workers are near pre-recession levels. Median income growth was the fastest on record in 2015. Quit rates are at pre-recession levels. Weekly initial unemployment claims are at the lowest levels since the early 1970s. I think "close to full employment" is an unavoidable conclusion looking at all the evidence.

But that's a little beside the point. What I'm saying is that Trump's response indicating that we were losing jobs, which we always do, but on net we've been gaining jobs for six years now. It doesn't make sense in 2016 to a question about putting money into the pockets of American workers. I'd predict that 2016 median income growth will be strong (difficult comp since, as noted, 2015 was the best ever recorded, but I'd expect further growth because of the tight labor market).

 

[riddleofsteel]

I dunno why Trump didn't bring up the housing crisis in 2007 when Clinton brought up trickle down, it was such an obvious point that Trump could have thrown right back in her face

You mean when Clinton stated trickle down economics created the 2008 financial crisis?

 

[sangreporsangre]

Trump is such a garbage candidate. I bet he never for a second believed he would get this far. I didn't see the debate but I have no doubt that he came off like an idiot, which I predicted. But it's a testament to how terrible of a candidate Hillary is that there is actually a chance she might lose. Lmao let that sink in, Hillary is so hated that she's in a close race with Donald goddamn Trump. Whoever wins, America loses.

 

[Rod1]

Democrats believe Government creates jobs not businesses, then they wonder why our jobs go overseas to duck the higher taxes that they created.

Remember the the tax holiday of Bush that was supposed to create thousands of jobs by bringing overseas money back? how did that worked out?

 

[flapjackfred]

Democrats believe Government creates jobs not businesses, then they wonder why our jobs go overseas to duck the higher taxes that they created.

That's some real deep thought there...........not really.

 

[Rod1]

He has the social advantage right now. Most (slight majority, I would hope) reasonable Americans are done blaming white people for how African-Americans behave, and are done responding to a question about "the shooting in Charlotte" by ignoring the reality that an Asian man would have been shot if he behaved the exact same way. Seriously, a majority of America is done with this comical, separating thinking. Advantage Trump.

Americans, the smart ones, also did not appreciate the United States giving China the world just so a few rich people could get richer in the short term; that actually was a really bad idea for us, but Hillary's (and most R's) donors don't want us to come to the realization of what actually happened there. In theory, advantage Trump.

After last night? With Trump sounding like "same ol' GOP" trickle down? Advantage Hillary. I can see why Ted Cruz finally "came around" to Donald Trump.. Because the only thing that matters to Bush republicans, and the career R politicians (with donors to appease) who pretend to be right of that, like Cruz, is trickle down. A failed economic system.

See, before, Trump was talking about not letting China win by cheating, by standing up to companies who made most of their money here, but only made their goods in China. That important to Independents economic issue changed last night.. NOW he is going to cut taxes and deregulate to try and "lure" the corporations that fu*ked America, back to America. That's not going to work. They will just make more crap in China, and more effectively suck the very last bit off America they can. That isn't the Trump I was seriously considering voting for. Trump was going to do the right thing and force companies that made their money off the American people to make some things here, and that actually would help. Seems like the powers that be got to Trump to inform him what the agenda really is and was, and that both sides are in on it.

Trump wants same ol' trickle down? May not vote.

You are like a kid who is slowly realizing that Santa may not actually be real.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Trump is such a garbage candidate. I bet he never for a second believed he would get this far. I didn't see the debate but I have no doubt that he came off like an idiot, which I predicted. But it's a testament to how terrible of a candidate Hillary is that there is actually a chance she might lose. Lmao let that sink in, Hillary is so hated that she's in a close race with Donald goddamn Trump. Whoever wins, America loses.

It's just that about half the country will vote for the guy with an R next to his name no matter what.

 

[Hit-N-Run]

Trump and anyone who think that tax cuts for business will increase jobs are just wrong. It's been tried and failed. What has more economic impact, one person or company with $10,000 or 10 people with $1000? I would argue the 10 people since they will buy goods and services across the economy. The one person or company will have less impact due the the concentration of their spending.

Companies don't create jobs just because they have extra money. They create jobs because people are buying goods and services and they need the extra labor. Every company I have ever worked for ahs done their utmost to have a few employees as they can. Labor is the largest cost for most companies. They won't go hire people just because they have extra cash.