You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Have you read Hillary's job plan? Serious question. Her solution to creating jobs is taxing the fuck out of the rich (good luck) and taxing companies that send jobs overseas (even more good luck) and with that money that she'll never get, she is going to magically create millions of high paying jobs. That's her solution.
I don't think anyone supporting Hillary has a right to complain about Trump's nothing plans.
Eh, not so much. And he does have a plan. And they are comparable.
Trump has been "pretty consistent about three big economic policy items," said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. The first, he said, is to raise barriers to immigration. The second is to impose potentially large tariffs on goods from Mexico and China. And the third is to enact large tax cuts.
Clinton proposes a fairly cautious agenda -- one that offers a measure of change, but without blowing up the existing system and without bucking longstanding practices such as staying within budget constraints.
By contrast, Trump’s across-the-board tax cuts would represent a far bigger change than Clinton’s proposal. It would lower revenues over 10 years by a whopping $9.6 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis.
"He says economic growth and cuts would make up for that, but it’s hard to imagine that it would be possible to do so," Williams said.
Burtless agreed, saying he’s "very skeptical the effects growth will be more than a small percentage of the amount Trump has claimed."
They got support on June 17 from Moody’s Analytics, an economic research and data-services firm that examined Trump’s policies on taxes, government spending, immigration and international trade. Moody’s concluded that Trump’s proposals would make the U.S. economy less global and would substantially increase the federal debt, benefit the wealthy disproportionately, and push unemployment up.
Issue
Clinton
Trump
Taxes
C:Would largely maintain the current tax code, with some increases for wealthier taxpayers.
T:Proposes across-the-board tax cut, with large cuts for wealthier taxpayers.
Minimum wage
C:Would increase nationally to $12, with $15 in some locations.
T:Has said he does not support a federal minimum wage but wants states to set their own minimum wages.
Trans-Pacific Partnership
C:After once helping negotiate the deal, she has since expressed skepticism.
T:Has come out forcefully against the trade agreement.
Manufacturing sector
C:Favors tax incentives for investment in hard-hit manufacturing locales and incentives for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S. Also favors increased policing of trading partners.
T:Proposes using aggressive trade enforcement and possible tariff increases to rebuild the manufacturing industry.
Worker retraining
C: Enhance worker retraining options, such as a tax credit for businesses of $1,500 per apprentice.
T: No public stance.
Infrastructure
C: Would boost federal investment by $275 billion over five years and create a $25 billion infrastructure bank.
T:Supports infrastructure expansion but hasn’t offered funding details.
Income inequality
C: Create a 15 percent tax credit for companies that share profits with workers on top of wages and pay increases.
T: Has offered few details beyond his tax plan and a comment critical of CEO pay.
Wall Street regulation
C: Supports keeping the Dodd-Frank law and in some cases would tighten rules for Wall Street, such as taxing high-frequency trading.
T: Has said he would dismantle Dodd-Frank.
Small business
C: Would ease regulatory burdens on community banks and support innovative financing methods.
T: Has sharply criticized government regulation but has not proposed specific policies.
Policies for working families
C: Advocates equal pay, paid family leave, earned sick days, and expanded child care.
T: No public stance.
Hillary's tax plan in specifics, because there seems to be some confusion on your taxing the fuck out of the wealthy thought. Here you go:
More than any other plan, Clinton’s largely maintains the tax code as we know it today. Like Sanders, Clinton targets the wealthy, albeit in much less radical ways than the self-declared socialist.
Her reforms would raise taxes slightly and collect billions over the next decade. Here’s what she’s proposing:
• Create a 4 percent surcharge on incomes over $5 million and impose a 30 percent minimum rate on adjusted gross incomes above $1 million;
• Limit itemized deduction benefits at 28 percent; raise rates on medium-term capital gains to between 27.8 percent and 47.4 percent; increase the top estate tax rate to 45 percent and reduce the threshold to $3.5 million; limit the value of tax-deferred retirement accounts;
• Create a new caregiver tax credit up to $1,200.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that most Americans wouldn’t be affected by Clinton’s proposed tax hikes, which target the highest income earners. The increases would average $78,000, equal to a 5 percent increase in after-tax income, for the top 1 percent of taxpayers and $520,000 or about 7.6 percent for the top 0.1 percent.
Middle-income households would pay about $44 more on average, equal to a tenth of a percent of change. The poorest filers would lose an additional $4, equal to no change.
Clinton’s reforms to the corporate tax code aim to tax profits earned by multinational businesses in the United States and U.S. companies earned abroad. Clinton is also seeking to penalize excessive risk taking in the financial sector while incentivizing business programs that help workers and distressed communities.
Analysts say Clinton’s proposals would increase federal revenues by $500 billion to $1.1 trillion in the first decade.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Not so much? I used her own tv commercial to lay out her plan. Are you claiming her own commercial got it wrong?
Well, buzz, I used the facts. You see, I don't actually base everything I know off commercials or ads. I research. She is not taxing the fuck out of anyone, and I don't remember any ad where she claimed that was her plan, tbh. The rich are still going to be rich. No one will be made poor. They will be rewarded for investment.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Have you read Hillary's job plan? Serious question. Her solution to creating jobs is taxing the fuck out of the rich (good luck) and taxing companies that send jobs overseas (even more good luck) and with that money that she'll never get, she is going to magically create millions of high paying jobs. That's her solution.
I don't think anyone supporting Hillary has a right to complain about Trump's nothing plans.
GOP day one: The free market is the only way, let it decide everything and allow the chips to fall where they may. In fact the government has very little impact if any on the economy (your words paraphrased)
GOP day two: What are Obama/Hillary/Fill-in-blank doing to create more jobs?
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Well, buzz, I used the facts. You see, I don't actually base everything I know off commercials or ads. I research. She is not taxing the fuck out of anyone, and I don't remember any ad where she claimed that was her plan, tbh. The rich are still going to be rich. No one will be made poor. They will be rewarded for investment.
Not so much? I used her own tv commercial to lay out her plan. Are you claiming her own commercial got it wrong?
Yes, a TV commercial encompasses a candidates entire job/economic platform. Sounds logical.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Donald Trump’s Mixed Signals on Immigration Roil Campaign
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/donald … NjAyNDYxWj
Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors stricter immigration controls, blamed Mr. Trump’s new advisers for his changed rhetoric—a move he said was intended to help Mr. Trump appeal to Hispanic audiences.
“Whatever remaining chance he had to win the White House is gone,” Mr. Krikorian said. “The fact now that he has betrayed his base on the signature issue that he ran on seems to me the death knell of his candidacy as a practical matter.”
Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration proposals pushed his GOP primary rivals to the right. Sen. Ted Cruz said illegal immigrants would be forced out of the country and not be allowed to return. Sen. Marco Rubio abandoned his prior support for comprehensive immigration reform.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who argued during the primary that Mr. Trump’s plan wasn’t realistic, called his new rhetoric “disturbing,” in an interview Thursday with WABC radio in New York
“His views will change based on the feedback he gets from a crowd, or, you know, what he thinks he has to do,” said Mr. Bush. “That’s what politicians do in this country. That’s what Trump is trying to do right now. I find it abhorrent.”
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
The dirty little secret about Trump can be summed up in one word: ‘Landslide’
Forget the establishment media, the rigged polls and the anti-Trump talking heads. The dirty secret of this election is that Donald Trump can win — and in a landslide.
The reason is simple: America does not want a third Obama term. The only poll that truly matters is the one showing nearly 75 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.
Leave aside Hillary Clinton’s fatal weaknesses and rampant criminal behavior — covertly arming and supporting ISIL, the disastrous war in Libya, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, pay-for-play (which got former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich 14 years in prison), mishandling classified information (a crime), committing perjury in congressional testimony to the Benghazi committee, repeatedly lying to the American public and deliberately hiding her failing health. She faces an insurmountable obstacle: Hillary is President Obama’s heir. A vote for her is a vote for the continuation of Obama’s failed progressive policies. This is why she must — and should — lose.
If Trump triumphs in November, the watershed moment will be his recent decision to shake-up his campaign.
Paul Manafort, a Washington insider and long-time RINO operative, was effectively demoted. He became Trump’s campaign manager after the billionaire’s victory in the Republican primaries. Believed to be an experienced operator who could add the necessary polish and discipline to the Trump campaign, Manafort was seen as the indispensable man.
No longer. It’s no accident that the Manafort era coincided with a relentless decline in Trump’s poll numbers. Manafort echoed the views of establishment GOP consultants that Trump needed to be “more presidential” and “moderate” his positions — especially, on immigration, Muslims and trade (the very issues that had propelled him to the top).
Trump realized that Manafort’s strategy had boxed him in. Once an outspoken, no-holds barred insurgent, Trump was starting to sound like someone he is not: an inside-the-Beltway politician. Manafort’s Machiavellianism is out; Trump’s brash populism is in.
This is the significance of his decision to bring on Stephen Bannon, the boss of Breitbart News, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior Republican strategist, to run the Trump campaign.
Their motto: Let Trump be Trump. They rightly understand that, for him to succeed, he must be himself — blunt, raw, authentic and politically incorrect. His greatest weapon is that he is a non-politician, someone who is able to viscerally connect with an angry and alienated electorate. His deep appeal rests on the fact that he is wiling to speak truth to power — to expose our corrupt and discredited ruling class.
For on the seminal issues of our day, Trump is right and the elites (both the Obama-Hillary Democrats and the Romney-Ryan Republicans) are wrong.
For over 25 years, our ruling class has engaged in economic treason. They have put the interests (and vast profits) of our transnational corporate elites above those of the American people. Every major trade agreement — NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, Most Favored Nation (MFN) status for China, the U.S.-South Korean trade pact, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — has led to the creation of a New World Order characterized by open borders, the loss of national sovereignty and free trade. The result has been the de-industrialization of America. Since the era of open-borders and free trade, U.S. economic power has been systematically eroded. The costs have been disastrous: Over 60,000 factories have left the United States; 5-6 million good-paying, blue-collar jobs have been outsourced; and our manufacturing base has been gutted.
It’s no wonder Trump’s America First trade policy is resonating in the heartland — especially, in the Midwest and Pennsylvania (the so-called Rust Belt). Working-class citizens have seen their factories, communities and families devastated by economic globalism. Their way of life is dying; they have been betrayed by the elites of both parties, who continue to worship at the altar of free trade while Middle America is being sacrificed to the gods of globalization.
On immigration, Beltway Republicans and liberal Democrats have formed an unholy alliance to swamp the United States with illegal aliens. They provide an endless supply of cheap labor while millions live on government assistance — bankrupting local hospitals, schools and city budgets.
We are under invasion. Whether the number is 11 million (which I don’t believe) or 20 million or even 30 million, illegal immigrants pose a clear and present danger. Our southern border is a bleeding sore. Illegals are stealing jobs, driving down wages and draining vital government resources. Countless murderers, rapists and drug smugglers are pouring across. Crime has exploded in inner cities; the Mexican drug cartels have effectively annexed parts of the border, enabling narcotics to flow unabated into our communities and schools. The result is an unprecedented heroin epidemic across large swathes of New England and the Midwest.
Islamic terrorists are virtually entering at will. ISIL is now in all 50 states; more radical Islamists — from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Libya — keep coming in every day. Our ruling class’ obsession with open borders and multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide.
This is why Trump’s call to secure the borders and build a massive wall along Mexico is perhaps his most important proposal. If we do not stop this invasion, then America — as we know it — will cease to exist. The United States will be transformed into a Third-World basket case: a lawless, impoverished and bankrupt nation overrun with criminals, drug lords, terrorists and parasites.
Borders define a country, just as a person’s home is defined by its property lines; strip away its borders and the nation — for all intents and purposes — disappears.
In short, this election is much more than a contest between Trump and Hillary. It is about the future of our constitutional republic. Hillary’s mission — the radical Left’s mission — is to finally drive a stake into the heart of America. She is an unabashed globalist.
Her goals are clear: grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, preserve unlimited mass immigration, bring in an additional 2 million Muslim refugees, plunge us into more endless (and unconstitutional) wars in the Middle East and continue the insane march towards economic globalization and the destruction of the middle- and working-class. She is a Benedict Arnold — a traitor who will do and say anything in her insatiable lust for power and wealth.
Trump, on the other hand, is the very opposite. He is a patriot, who instinctively understands that our country is at a pivotal crossroad. His vision — the restoration of constitutional self-government, economic nationalism, regaining control of our borders, a foreign policy based on realism and defending the national interest, and — above all — his commitment to re-establishing American exceptionalism — is what our country desperately needs. It is also what our country desperately wants, even craves.
This is why Trump, if he stays on message, can win. And win big.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Omg it's like talking to a brick wall. At no point did I say that was her entire tax plan. I talked about her plan to create jobs. That plan is exactly what I said it is. Those are the facts, yet neither of you addressed it because you cannot. So you deflect to other stuff. So predictable.
You guys are so fucking buried in your ignorance that you can't possibly be taken seriously. Good day, go back to living in you dream land.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
For some reason in spite of the fact that her ad is on TV here every hour, it is not easy to find online for some reason. I was able to find this though:
It touches on her ad and why there's no way in the world it could ever work. It's all a smokescreen meant to trick the dumb people into voting for her. Apparently based on what we're seeing here, it's working.
