|
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. |
has Trump ever presented a single thing he's going to cut to compensate for his enormous tax breaks? This makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand why nobody is talking about this in the media
|
On September 16 2016 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:
has Trump ever presented a single thing he's going to cut to compensate for his enormous tax breaks? This makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand why nobody is talking about this in the media
They are, but no one is listening. It is the ongoing problem with Trump and the media. By the time a reporter has the facts to prove he previous lie wrong, Trump has moved on to the next one. The only way to deal with the problem is to challenge him on the spot and then he claims the media is biased against him.
|
United States43210 Posts
On September 16 2016 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:
has Trump ever presented a single thing he's going to cut to compensate for his enormous tax breaks? This makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand why nobody is talking about this in the media
He's currently playing at being all things to all people. He'll go from a meeting with conservatives where he talks about cutting the deficit, cutting taxes and eliminating benefits and go into a meeting with more centrist people where he'll promise to protect all the things they care about.
|
On a completely tangential theme, WTF is with Hillary's site. How can she think this is a) not annoying and b) a good idea?
You go there, you get a popup (technically a popover or whatever those JS things are called), saying
Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit for the presidency.
You can then "agree", or hunt for the little X in the corner.
If you agree, you get the message:
Stand with Hillary and help keep Trump out of the White House
And are asked for your email address and zip code.
My first reaction was "this is really annoying". My second reaction was "really? On your own website, the best message you can come up with is that 'well, at least she's not Trump'?!"
Upon reflection, it goes deeper than that, though. This is her campaign website. If you are visiting it, it means you are politically involved enough to look into the candidates beyond whatever cable TV is feeding you. This seems like a great opportunity to engage and maybe even recruit people. Way to completely fuck that up.
It just reinforces my idea that her campaign is being run by a bunch of incompetent idiots. Which is a real shame, because I do, in fact, think Trump's temperament makes him unfit for the presidency... and her bungling of the campaign might give him a chance at exactly that.
EDIT: looks like it only does that annoying popup the first time (or the first time in X amount of time), so if you want to experience it, you might have to open an anonymous browsing tab.
EDIT 2: lolololol. Trump actually one-ups her. If you visit his official site on an anonymous tab, there's a captcha as gatekeeper. What the actual fuck. Why does Trump care whether I am a bot or not?
|
On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: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 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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care
Looks like Trump's plan is more generous.
And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false.
Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it.
And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections?
|
On September 16 2016 02:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:
has Trump ever presented a single thing he's going to cut to compensate for his enormous tax breaks? This makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand why nobody is talking about this in the media He's currently playing at being all things to all people. He'll go from a meeting with conservatives where he talks about cutting the deficit, cutting taxes and eliminating benefits and go into a meeting with more centrist people where he'll promise to protect all the things they care about.
He's going to have to produce some real policy decisions at some point though, should he get elected. In the end it would probably turn out like some form of Reaganomics with enormous tax cuts and a tripled deficit, which would be ironic given the ironclad fiscal discipline stance.
|
On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: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 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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. Show nested quote +And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections?
You sound almost proud to be voting for a snake-oil salesman.
|
On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: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 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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. Show nested quote +And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections?
Well if what you say is true, then I'm done caring about the election. The people will get what they deserve. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that trump (and just about any republican) will make poor and dumb people much worse off than they would be under a democratic presidency. If those poor dumb people who don't care about facts want to vote for trump because they're too stupid to care about facts, let them get what's coming to them.
|
On September 16 2016 02:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: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 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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? You sound almost proud to be voting for a snake-oil salesman.
Whether and why I am proud to vote Trump has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not being an advocate. I'm just providing my own objective commentary.
|
On September 16 2016 02:02 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2016 22:34 Rebs wrote:On September 15 2016 14:28 RvB wrote:On September 15 2016 12:45 Rebs wrote:On September 15 2016 12:30 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So when this becomes a national story NAFTA will back in the spotlight...
We should tax them, so then their cars cost more than foreign cars. Then we can tax the foreign cars. Then every other country in the world taxes US cars. Then we can't see cars abroad. Everyone loses. In fairness with regards to the auto industry, there is a legitimate case for some protectionisim. News flash no one buys American cars outside NA. This 'legitimate case' has existed for decades. There has already been protectionism for the big car makers and it didn't work back then why would it now? News flash if nobody buys your products it means you have a shitty product. uhh Japan ? Pretty good model for why protectionism works. Not sure what you mean by it didnt work back then. As we can see now, it worked brilliantly. But its not the sole reason and never should be ofcourse since there is a high risk the protected industry gets sloppy. Japanese industries dont do that because as much as people like to bitch about the lack of creativity in Kaizen, its disciplined and efficient. Americans cant handle that shit. And its not like it was a race to the bottom in terms of cost cutting via shafting wages which is what China does. News flash, American cars arent really that bad. Its just that they cant compete financially with markets abroad. And they wont for a long time. But they could do quite decently at home provided some actual will involving some improvements in manufacturing and will. But they dont want to do that because they want to make cars that let you let your hair down. Thats their problem. Japan isn't a model that protectionism works but that's besides the point. Protectionism in the US car industry against the Japanese has already been tried in the 80s so they could catch up to them. Guess what it didn't work. Show nested quote +According to one study, lifting the VER would have produced a gain of $9.8 billion for the United States.12 Another estimated that the VER reduction in 1992 saved 1,234 jobs in the United States, but also imposed a $1.7 billion cost on consumers and a quota rent loss of $1.2 billion.13 Yet another study stressed that the biggest losers were US consumers who had to pay an average of about $1,200 more (in 1983 dollars) per Japanese car, and suffered a combined loss of some $13 billion; the US economy as a whole suffered welfare losses totalling some $3 billion. Show nested quote +In the long term, as illustrated by the data in Figure 3, the VERs paused but did not halt or reverse the relative decline of the Big Three. Those firms’ combined share of the US market, as well as the share of the Japanese producers, fluctuated very little during the 1981–95 period. While the US producers did improve quality during that time, they continued to lose ground to Japanese and other foreign firms in the first decade of the 21st century. http://www.globaltradealert.org/sites/default/files/GTA-AP1 Vangrasstek_0.pdfShow nested quote +It was the sustained competition from efficient, export-oriented Japanese firms that produced the changes in the U.S. auto producers that are being celebrated in the specialist auto media and the popular press today. There is not a shred of evidence that the innovations in organization, product, and process that define the new auto industry would have occurred without that competition. Second, trade policy was not essential to improved performance. The primary effect of trade activism, during the brief period in the mid-1980s when it was binding, was to transfer rents from consumers to foreign and domestic firms. www.nber.org
Sure it is.
Also I know what Reagan did, he did it totally wrong. That isnt an indicment for protectionism in general. its an indictment of how it was done. Obama did the exact opposite, its also pretty much failing.
The japanese did it and they did it right. They were innovatinve and competed better with protectionist behavior at the core of it. If competition is your only incentive for innovation you are in trouble anyway. Competition is ofcourse paramount, but sometimes you get a red card and keep playing with 10 men for the rest of the century. The only way to fix that is to restart the game.
Your good at finding articles, you will find plenty that will advise that.
|
On September 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? You sound almost proud to be voting for a snake-oil salesman. Whether and why I am proud to vote Trump has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not being an advocate. I'm just providing my own objective commentary.
Your commentary is hardly objective.
|
On September 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? You sound almost proud to be voting for a snake-oil salesman. Whether and why I am proud to vote Trump has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not being an advocate. I'm just providing my own subjective commentary.
Fixed that for you. You go full "inconceivable" when you use that word.
|
On September 16 2016 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Drumpf's from my economic perspective? What Drumpf is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Drumpf's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Drumpf and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Drumpf's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Drumpf can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Drumpf has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Drumpf's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? You sound almost proud to be voting for a snake-oil salesman. Whether and why I am proud to vote Drumpf has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not being an advocate. I'm just providing my own objective commentary. Your commentary is hardly objective.
Objectively speaking, if someone promises me the moonrocks that taste like candy apples and someone else cant, obviously im going to choose the first one. easy choice.
|
On September 16 2016 02:37 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:30 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Drumpf's from my economic perspective? What Drumpf is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Drumpf's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Drumpf and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Drumpf's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Drumpf can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Drumpf has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Drumpf's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? You sound almost proud to be voting for a snake-oil salesman. Whether and why I am proud to vote Drumpf has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not being an advocate. I'm just providing my own objective commentary. Your commentary is hardly objective. Objectively speaking, if someone promises me the moonrocks that taste like candy apples and someone else cant, obviously im going to choose the first one. easy choice.
You just replaced "To be honest" with objectively. Honesty does not equal objectivity.
|
On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: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 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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. Show nested quote +And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections?
So which is it. Is he going to make your life better by lowering costs or is everything a lie to get elected? Can't have it both ways.
|
On September 16 2016 02:41 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote: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 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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? So which is it. Is he going to make your life better by lowering costs or is everything a lie to get elected? Can't have it both ways.
I don't see why the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Here's what I'm saying phrased slightly differently. Trump is running on the theory that "republican virtue" is dead. A majority of people aren't interested in doing what's good for the country anymore; they are interested in what's good for them. The Democrat constituency is built upon this type of pandering (and I'm not just talking about raw handouts, I'm also talking about things like liberal illegal immigration policy). Trump is merely bringing the republican party current with the times by introducing massive pandering to the Republican platform. What makes this particularly effective for Trump is that it enables him to break off voter blocks that would otherwise vote Democrat by using pandering to create wedge issues (NAFTA anyone?). The sad reality is that most voters want to vote for Santa Claus. To the extent that republican virtue still exists, you're most likely to find it among conservatives, but Trump's calculus is that most of those people are going to vote for him anyway for other reasons. Pandering is how Trump is creating his majority.
|
|
|
Watching Trump spout positions antithetical to Republican mainstream positions and watching both his supporters and party officials is a very amusing pastime.
|
On September 16 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:Watching Trump spout positions antithetical to Republican mainstream positions and watching both his supporters and party officials is a very amusing pastime.
Trump's heresies against conservatism are largely excusable given that he's going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall).
|
On September 16 2016 02:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:41 On_Slaught wrote:On September 16 2016 02:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-care Looks like Trump's plan is more generous. And as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false. Of course the truth doesn't matter any more. Nor, by extension, do facts. Only the emotional and subconscious sells matter. Trump has figured this out and is taking these principles to their logical conclusions. And in doing so, he has so badly outmaneuvered the democrat party (he's literally occupying positions left and right of Hillary) that no one really knows what to do about it. And for all of you who are complaining about the cost of Trump's plan and how he's going to pay for it, let me ask you this: how often does the "how are we going to pay for it" objection work when it comes to elections? So which is it. Is he going to make your life better by lowering costs or is everything a lie to get elected? Can't have it both ways. I don't see why the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. Here's what I'm saying phrased slightly differently. Trump is running on the theory that "republican virtue" is dead. A majority of people aren't interested in doing what's good for the country anymore; they are interested in what's good for them. The Democrat constituency is built upon this type of pandering (and I'm not just talking about raw handouts, I'm also talking about things like liberal illegal immigration policy). Trump is merely bringing the republican party current with the times by introducing massive pandering to the Republican platform. What makes this particularly effective for Trump is that it enables him to break off voter blocks that would otherwise vote Democrat by using pandering to create wedge issues (NAFTA anyone?). The sad reality is that most voters want to vote for Santa Claus. To the extent that republican virtue still exists, you're most likely to find it among conservatives, but Trump's calculus is that most of those people are going to vote for him anyway for other reasons. Pandering is how Trump is creating his majority.
Ran against the establishment selling out the American people, just to side with the establishment trotting out liberal policy because the conservatives are stuck voting against the big time progressive radical. Yeah, it's good political calculus. It just sickens me to the stomach how bad the best case scenario is going to be. And I still don't know if he can convince enough people that he's going to give out more free goodies than the party who's been doing it for ages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
