Insanity of Clintons economic plan

Turtleneck wrote:This article was rather disappointing. Since I am not particularly fond of Clinton, I opened the link hoping to read a strong and detailed rebuke of Clinton's economic plan. While the article was long on criticism of Clinton's plan, it was short on truth about Trump's plan. The article lost credibility when it when it transitioned into a piece of Trump propaganda.

First there is the issue of deregulation. In Trump's economic plan, he more-or-less promises to wave a magic wand and make regulations disappear. He plans on asking agencies to make lists of regulations, rank them from most important to least important, and then his administration will repeal the least important regulations. Regulatory repeal is more complex than Trump understands, and this seems to contradict your criticisms of Obama as an unilateral executive. However, my favorite part of his plan for deregulation is where he promises to fire bureaucrats who kill jobs and hire new bureaucrats that will create jobs. So deregulation does not involve reducing the size of the bureaucracy, but instead replacing bureaucrats with more bureaucrats?

Second, Trump's tax plan exists side-by-side with massive spending programs. What the article fails to point out is that a Trump administration would likely have to borrow, borrow, and borrow some more. Is this not exactly what you want to move away from? The article criticizes Clinton for proposing too much infrastructure spending while neglecting to mention that Trump proposed we spend nearly double the Clinton plan's suggested $275B. After that, with these across the board tax cuts, how are we going to pay for his plans to increase military spending and the wall? Mexico is not paying for the wall.

Third, his ridiculous trade policies are more harmful than helpful. Yes, the global economy is rigged against the working class. Yet Trump has no idea how to make a real difference. He wants new deals, but we never hear details about what those deals would like. Instead we hear about protectionist policies that would price people out of the market and undermine America's export economy.

Anxiously awaiting a reply of or or

Turtleneck wrote:The Dude sounded like he wanted to have a conversation but he never replied.

The_Dude wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:The Dude sounded like he wanted to have a conversation but he never replied.

Meh, as I look around this thread all I see are boring partisan democratic hacks.  No convo to be had with people that believe in propaganda and outright lies.

Trump's plan would reduce taxes by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over 10 years, before taking into account broader effects on the economy, according to an independent analysis. Trump has said he would cut federal spending to make up for the loss of revenue, but most analysts assume the government would have to borrow more money to make up for the taxes not collected.

When governments borrow more, their trade deficits -- the difference between imports and exports -- tend to increase. In a brief analysis recently, Len Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, estimated that Trump's tax plan could double the trade deficit.

Predicting the consequences of Trump's policies is difficult, both because the international economy is immensely complicated and because Trump sometimes has been vague and inconsistent about what he would do if elected. In any case, the fact that Trump's proposal for tax relief could increase the trade deficit illustrates an important connection between the federal budget and global commerce.

LooseGoose wrote:lol, Castle's plan? Does it matter?


Here's what I think - no matter which person gets elected they're cooked economically.

The stock market is due for a correction.
The economy is way overdue for a recession.

Yes we've added jobs for 70some straight months but left out of the touting of that figure is that job growth is 50,000 a month behind last year and last year wasn't fast enough.

6 million people are stuck in part time jobs that want full time jobs (and that's from 538, far from a R site).

94 million working age non participants in the workforce.

Dump a recession and a stock market correction of 3-5000 points on top of that? It'll be a fucking disaster. And let's be honest, a President has VERY little to do with the economy in the very short term. Long term yes.

So - I think that economic news makes either Trump or Hills a 1 term President. Check back in a few years and see.

Turtleneck wrote:Can you stop with the Castle BS? We all know you support Trump. You defend Trump every chance you get. Sorry, but people rarely defend those they claim to despise, at least not to the extent you defend Trump.

So, from you answer, you cannot defend Trump's economics. Got it.

kingstonlake wrote:We can all debate both candidates economic plans. Both may suck, both may work, or one may be beneficial over the other. But recently theres one thing I can't get out of my mind.

Does Trump understand supply and demand? His economic and foreign policy positions spell disaster. For example, he keeps on saying the world is going to have to pay for our protection. does he understand there are other suppliers for protection and advanced military weapons systems? Take Saudi Arabia for example. Whats to stop them from saying, "fuck you Dumb Ass, we'll let Russia supply protection or supply armament. What's that you say Donnie boy? You want us Pakistanis to pony up a few billion? Nah, Russia has us covered and they got some real cool shit on the cheap we'd love to buy and re-sell. Trump will keep up with the four or five trigger sound bites that the big picture challenged right will slurp up. Then when he spends us into oblivion to right the wrong militarily he created, we will be far worse off than we are now.

Rocinante wrote:This is interesting because I had a Facebook conversation worth a woman I " know" tonight. She posted a racist video about voter ID laws, I presented a lot of evidence that voter id laws are racist, she said I was calling her racist and never addressed the point. This seems to be the m.o. Don't really have facts that back up your stupid statements? Cool. Just call the people disagreeing with you liberals.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Rocinante wrote:This is interesting because I had a Facebook conversation worth a woman I " know" tonight. She posted a racist video about voter ID laws, I presented a lot of evidence that voter id laws are racist, she said I was calling her racist and never addressed the point. This seems to be the m.o. Don't really have facts that back up your stupid statements? Cool. Just call the people disagreeing with you liberals.

Fuck you liberal