|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Pretty good column in the NYT by Nicholas Kristof (except he's way too cautious -- journalists clearly bear a huge responsibility in what he's describing).
When a Crackpot Runs for President
One of the mental traps that we all fall into, journalists included, is to perceive politics through narratives.
President Gerald Ford had been a star football player, yet somehow we in the media developed a narrative of him as a klutz — so that every time he stumbled, a clip was on the evening news. Likewise, we in the media wrongly portrayed President Jimmy Carter as a bumbling lightweight, even as he tackled the toughest challenges, from recognizing China to returning the Panama Canal.
Then in 2000, we painted Al Gore as inauthentic and having a penchant for self-aggrandizing exaggerations, and the most memorable element of the presidential debates that year became not George W. Bush’s misstatements but Gore’s dramatic sighs.
I bring up this checkered track record because I wonder if once again our collective reporting isn’t fueling misperceptions.
A CNN/ORC poll this month found that by a margin of 15 percentage points, voters thought Donald Trump was “more honest and trustworthy” than Hillary Clinton. Let’s be frank: This public perception is completely at odds with all evidence.
On the PolitiFact website, 13 percent of Clinton’s statements that were checked were rated “false” or “pants on fire,” compared with 53 percent of Trump’s. Conversely, half of Clinton’s are rated “true” or “mostly true” compared to 15 percent of Trump statements.
Clearly, Clinton shades the truth — yet there’s no comparison with Trump.
I’m not sure that journalism bears responsibility, but this does raise the thorny issue of false equivalence, which has been hotly debated among journalists this campaign. Here’s the question: Is it journalistic malpractice to quote each side and leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions, even if one side seems to fabricate facts or make ludicrous comments?
President Obama weighed in this week, saying that “we can’t afford to act as if there’s some equivalence here.”
I’m wary of grand conclusions about false equivalence from 30,000 feet. But at the grass roots of a campaign, I think we can do better at signaling that one side is a clown.
There are crackpots who believe that the earth is flat, and they don’t deserve to be quoted without explaining that this is an, er, outlying view, and the same goes for a crackpot who has argued that climate change is a Chinese-made hoax, who has called for barring Muslims and who has said that he will build a border wall and that Mexico will pay for it.
We owe it to our readers to signal when we’re writing about a crackpot. Even if he’s a presidential candidate. No, especially when he’s a presidential candidate.
Source
|
On September 16 2016 00:57 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough. You don't tackle something like divorce rates with financial incentives in a contract that is most often emotionally driven by fondness/love. All that could possibly do is give a boost to the raw numbers but it just keeps shit marriages together longer. Divorce rates are a culture "problem". Which is why a lot of conservative christians have been banging on about marriage because they see the break down of man/wife + kids family as one of the core problems that leads to a good chunk of the larger ones.
Yes, I agree that divorce rates are largely a "culture problem." And I also agree that, while financial subsidies do incentivize marriages, there will be a percentage of the marriages so incentivized at the margin that will be of the "lesser quality" variety. What's less clear is whether the overall social effect of the subsidy is good, bad, and/or worth the cost of the subsidy.
|
Tax deductible couples counseling and government subsisted communication in relationship classes. If we are going to encourage relationships, lets do it in a way we can measure and people can use.
|
On September 16 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 00:57 Slaughter wrote:On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough. You don't tackle something like divorce rates with financial incentives in a contract that is most often emotionally driven by fondness/love. All that could possibly do is give a boost to the raw numbers but it just keeps shit marriages together longer. Divorce rates are a culture "problem". Which is why a lot of conservative christians have been banging on about marriage because they see the break down of man/wife + kids family as one of the core problems that leads to a good chunk of the larger ones. Yes, I agree that divorce rates are largely a "culture problem." And I also agree that, while financial subsidies do incentivize marriages, there will be a percentage of the marriages so incentivized at the margin that will be of the "lesser quality" variety. What's less clear is whether the overall social effect of the subsidy is good, bad, and/or worth the cost of the subsidy.
I don't think divorce rates are just a cultural problem (although clearly they are to an extent), but an economic problem as well.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htm
Divorce rate is inversely related with both education level and age. Age of marriage tends to also be inversely correlated with education level.
|
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies.
|
On September 16 2016 01:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:57 Slaughter wrote:On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough. You don't tackle something like divorce rates with financial incentives in a contract that is most often emotionally driven by fondness/love. All that could possibly do is give a boost to the raw numbers but it just keeps shit marriages together longer. Divorce rates are a culture "problem". Which is why a lot of conservative christians have been banging on about marriage because they see the break down of man/wife + kids family as one of the core problems that leads to a good chunk of the larger ones. Yes, I agree that divorce rates are largely a "culture problem." And I also agree that, while financial subsidies do incentivize marriages, there will be a percentage of the marriages so incentivized at the margin that will be of the "lesser quality" variety. What's less clear is whether the overall social effect of the subsidy is good, bad, and/or worth the cost of the subsidy. I don't think divorce rates are just a cultural problem (although clearly they are to an extent), but an economic problem as well. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htmDivorce rate is inversely related with both education level and age. Age of marriage tends to also be inversely correlated with education level.
People who are willing to plan their lives effectively and make concessions when necessary for the greater good and future success, tend to have better marriages? Of course. People's ability to just have a functional relationship is clearly the biggest issue. Most people are very, very selfish and very stubborn/insecure. Giving people a couple thousand bucks isn't going to fix the fact that most people are shitty, do a bad job at planning their lives, and generally don't have what it takes to have a successful marriage.
|
On September 16 2016 00:24 xDaunt wrote:
There should be major incentives given for married couples to stay together, but I'm not sure that child care subsidies are the right ones to use to discourage divorce/single parenting.
A new entitlement funded by debt (and expansion of others)? More reason to hold my nose as I cast my ballot. Liberals have been trying for this kind of entitlement for years, and I say it won't take two seconds for this to be compromised to all mothers.
|
On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies.
That he has no viable plan to fund. Even the proposed loopholes he claimed would close do not come close to the cost of the program.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/trumps-dodge-on-childcare-000202
Its another Trump policy, promising something he likely has no power to deliver and likely won’t be that effective or help the people who need help.
|
On September 16 2016 01:05 kwizach wrote:Pretty good column in the NYT by Nicholas Kristof (except he's way too cautious -- journalists clearly bear a huge responsibility in what he's describing). Show nested quote +When a Crackpot Runs for President
One of the mental traps that we all fall into, journalists included, is to perceive politics through narratives.
President Gerald Ford had been a star football player, yet somehow we in the media developed a narrative of him as a klutz — so that every time he stumbled, a clip was on the evening news. Likewise, we in the media wrongly portrayed President Jimmy Carter as a bumbling lightweight, even as he tackled the toughest challenges, from recognizing China to returning the Panama Canal.
Then in 2000, we painted Al Gore as inauthentic and having a penchant for self-aggrandizing exaggerations, and the most memorable element of the presidential debates that year became not George W. Bush’s misstatements but Gore’s dramatic sighs.
I bring up this checkered track record because I wonder if once again our collective reporting isn’t fueling misperceptions.
A CNN/ORC poll this month found that by a margin of 15 percentage points, voters thought Donald Trump was “more honest and trustworthy” than Hillary Clinton. Let’s be frank: This public perception is completely at odds with all evidence.
On the PolitiFact website, 13 percent of Clinton’s statements that were checked were rated “false” or “pants on fire,” compared with 53 percent of Trump’s. Conversely, half of Clinton’s are rated “true” or “mostly true” compared to 15 percent of Trump statements.
Clearly, Clinton shades the truth — yet there’s no comparison with Trump.
I’m not sure that journalism bears responsibility, but this does raise the thorny issue of false equivalence, which has been hotly debated among journalists this campaign. Here’s the question: Is it journalistic malpractice to quote each side and leave it to readers to reach their own conclusions, even if one side seems to fabricate facts or make ludicrous comments?
President Obama weighed in this week, saying that “we can’t afford to act as if there’s some equivalence here.”
I’m wary of grand conclusions about false equivalence from 30,000 feet. But at the grass roots of a campaign, I think we can do better at signaling that one side is a clown.
There are crackpots who believe that the earth is flat, and they don’t deserve to be quoted without explaining that this is an, er, outlying view, and the same goes for a crackpot who has argued that climate change is a Chinese-made hoax, who has called for barring Muslims and who has said that he will build a border wall and that Mexico will pay for it.
We owe it to our readers to signal when we’re writing about a crackpot. Even if he’s a presidential candidate. No, especially when he’s a presidential candidate. Source
Mr. Kristof is asking the wrong questions. Grabbing a megaphone and shouting down Trump even more than the NYT and other mainstream media journalists have already done isn't the solution. That will just cause even more voters to tune them out.
|
United States43729 Posts
On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies.
Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Trump has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes?
I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy.
There is no reading of Trump's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there.
|
On September 16 2016 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:57 Slaughter wrote:On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough. You don't tackle something like divorce rates with financial incentives in a contract that is most often emotionally driven by fondness/love. All that could possibly do is give a boost to the raw numbers but it just keeps shit marriages together longer. Divorce rates are a culture "problem". Which is why a lot of conservative christians have been banging on about marriage because they see the break down of man/wife + kids family as one of the core problems that leads to a good chunk of the larger ones. Yes, I agree that divorce rates are largely a "culture problem." And I also agree that, while financial subsidies do incentivize marriages, there will be a percentage of the marriages so incentivized at the margin that will be of the "lesser quality" variety. What's less clear is whether the overall social effect of the subsidy is good, bad, and/or worth the cost of the subsidy. I don't think divorce rates are just a cultural problem (although clearly they are to an extent), but an economic problem as well. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htmDivorce rate is inversely related with both education level and age. Age of marriage tends to also be inversely correlated with education level. People who are willing to plan their lives effectively and make concessions when necessary for the greater good and future success, tend to have better marriages? Of course. People's ability to just have a functional relationship is clearly the biggest issue. Most people are very, very selfish and very stubborn/insecure. Giving people a couple thousand bucks isn't going to fix the fact that most people are shitty, do a bad job at planning their lives, and generally don't have what it takes to have a successful marriage.
You can use this same logic to blame people for anything.
14 year old girls getting pregnant? Never mind that they never got the education to understand sex and pregnancy, they should've planned better.
Poor inner city kids stuck in a perpetual cycle of violence where they can't get a job or education and can't have a better quality of life than their parents? Never mind that they had zero opportunities and the system worked against them at every turn, they should've planned better!
Obviously any one individual makes mistakes that lead to consequences, but when it's a cultural trend, you can't just say, "Well everyone is just being stupid/lazy." At some point, it becomes an issue of how we raise and educate people to think about things.
|
On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Trump has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes? I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy. There is no reading of Trump's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there.
Let's just presume that you're correct about all of the above. What will Joe voter hear? What you just said, or that Trump is going to pay for his kids' daycare?
|
By the way, a good theory I've heard about Trump's black outreach is it's more about convincing those suburban white moms that he needs to win that he's not a racist. It's not really about the black vote, since he won't ever get enough of those to win.
Makes sense to me.
|
On September 16 2016 01:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. That he has no viable plan to fund. Even the proposed loopholes he claimed would close do not come close to the cost of the program. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/trumps-dodge-on-childcare-000202Its another Trump policy, promising something he likely has no power to deliver and likely won’t be that effective or help the people who need help.
I don't think XDaunt's point is that it's a sound policy, but that it's a policy that random voter X will hear and like to hear because it's good for them.
I'm skeptical of how much it'll actually help him, but the optics are definitely a boon for him.
|
On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Trump has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes? I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy. There is no reading of Trump's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there. Let's just presume that you're correct about all of the above. What will Joe voter hear? What you just said, or that Trump is going to pay for his kids' daycare?
Yup. Trump should promise Joe Voter the moon on a stick, because it really doesn't matter that it is completely 100% impossible.
PS: whence the disdain for Joe Voter?
|
On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Trump has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes? I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy. There is no reading of Trump's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there. Let's just presume that you're correct about all of the above. What will Joe voter hear? What you just said, or that Trump is going to pay for his kids' daycare?
Lies are cool as long as Hilary is beaten? I always knew you were a believer in the true GOP plan since Obama won. Unless you are not praising Trump's act of promising people things he can't deliver?
|
On September 16 2016 01:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2016 01:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:57 Slaughter wrote:On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough. You don't tackle something like divorce rates with financial incentives in a contract that is most often emotionally driven by fondness/love. All that could possibly do is give a boost to the raw numbers but it just keeps shit marriages together longer. Divorce rates are a culture "problem". Which is why a lot of conservative christians have been banging on about marriage because they see the break down of man/wife + kids family as one of the core problems that leads to a good chunk of the larger ones. Yes, I agree that divorce rates are largely a "culture problem." And I also agree that, while financial subsidies do incentivize marriages, there will be a percentage of the marriages so incentivized at the margin that will be of the "lesser quality" variety. What's less clear is whether the overall social effect of the subsidy is good, bad, and/or worth the cost of the subsidy. I don't think divorce rates are just a cultural problem (although clearly they are to an extent), but an economic problem as well. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/marriage-and-divorce-patterns-by-gender-race-and-educational-attainment.htmDivorce rate is inversely related with both education level and age. Age of marriage tends to also be inversely correlated with education level. People who are willing to plan their lives effectively and make concessions when necessary for the greater good and future success, tend to have better marriages? Of course. People's ability to just have a functional relationship is clearly the biggest issue. Most people are very, very selfish and very stubborn/insecure. Giving people a couple thousand bucks isn't going to fix the fact that most people are shitty, do a bad job at planning their lives, and generally don't have what it takes to have a successful marriage. You can use this same logic to blame people for anything. 14 year old girls getting pregnant? Never mind that they never got the education to understand sex and pregnancy, they should've planned better. Poor inner city kids stuck in a perpetual cycle of violence where they can't get a job or education and can't have a better quality of life than their parents? Never mind that they had zero opportunities and the system worked against them at every turn, they should've planned better! Obviously any one individual makes mistakes that lead to consequences, but when it's a cultural trend, you can't just say, "Well everyone is just being stupid/lazy." At some point, it becomes an issue of how we raise and educate people to think about things.
Of course the opposite is also true, that you can always find a way to never blame anyone for anything and just pretend that they are always the unfortunate product of a society that failed them.
|
On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Trump has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes? I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy. There is no reading of Trump's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there. Let's just presume that you're correct about all of the above. What will Joe voter hear? What you just said, or that Trump is going to pay for his kids' daycare? Yup. Trump should promise Joe Voter the moon on a stick, because it really doesn't matter that it is completely 100% impossible. PS: whence the disdain for Joe Voter?
My wife and I are paying in the neighborhood of $3,000-3,500 per month for childcare (2 kids in daycare, 1 in kindergarten + after-school care). Trump just told me that he's going to cover it. What could Hillary possibly offer me that trumps what Trump just put on the table?
|
On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Drumpf some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Drumpf has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes? I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy. There is no reading of Drumpf's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there. Let's just presume that you're correct about all of the above. What will Joe voter hear? What you just said, or that Drumpf is going to pay for his kids' daycare? Yup. Drumpf should promise Joe Voter the moon on a stick, because it really doesn't matter that it is completely 100% impossible. PS: whence the disdain for Joe Voter? My wife and I are paying in the neighborhood of $3,000-3,500 per month for childcare (2 kids in daycare, 1 in kindergarten + after-school care). Drumpf just told me that he's going to cover it. What could Hillary possibly offer me that trumps what Drumpf just put on the table?
I think the magic revelation here is that he cant.
edit: Also if that is an incentive that is exclusive to married couples, then thats just wrong for the x reasons people have explained already.
|
Actually, I'm trying to figure out exactly how much Trump is going to pay for. It's a little ambiguous from the policy, but it's not going to be full amount of the child care expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
