This is why he says we look like a third-world nation, and were many topics he touched on:

 

 

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

 

I get that he wants to spend more on infrastructure, and I am good with that. What I don't get is that he then went on to complain in the debate that we are a debtor nation. From what I understand he wants to finance the infrastructure through bond issuance, and wants to cut taxes greatly, both on corporations and individuals. How does this get us away from being a debtor nation? I know you said earlier that you thought his responses on jobs, taxes, and the economy were his strongest, but I am perplexed as to how any of his policies add up economically. I also was underwhelmed by Clinton's laundry list of industries without any explanation of how we get there. I presume she was talking something like targeted tax incentives or something, but she didn't get any deeper into it that I saw. Still, I do remember her call-out about the expert review of their plans and how his would add huge debt while hers would create jobs. I certainly don't buy it just because she said it, but I don't get the lower taxes and more debt equals fiscal security, either. While I hate the cheesy phrase Trumped-up trickle down, it does sound like the old supply-side economics.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

I get that he wants to spend more on infrastructure, and I am good with that. What I don't get is that he then went on to complain in the debate that we are a debtor nation. From what I understand he wants to finance the infrastructure through bond issuance, and wants to cut taxes greatly, both on corporations and individuals. How does this get us away from being a debtor nation? I know you said earlier that you thought his responses on jobs, taxes, and the economy were his strongest, but I am perplexed as to how any of his policies add up economically. I also was underwhelmed by Clinton's laundry list of industries without any explanation of how we get there. I presume she was talking something like targeted tax incentives or something, but she didn't get any deeper into it that I saw. Still, I do remember her call-out about the expert review of their plans and how his would add huge debt while hers would create jobs. I certainly don't buy it just because she said it, but I don't get the lower taxes and more debt equals fiscal security, either. While I hate the cheesy phrase Trumped-up trickle down, it does sound like the old supply-side economics.

 

Trump's plan hinges on economic growth. If we can reach 3.5-4% GDP growth, there will be an influx of new tax revenue. If you factor out economic growth, of course Trump's plan will increase the debt. You have to factor in:

 

1. Trade re-balancing

2. Economic growth

3. Handling corporate inversion

4. Ending corporate loopholes

5. Reinvigorating energy production through all sectors

 

And a bunch of other stuff I am too tired to look up. Read this, policy docs are always better than 30 second - 2 minute soundbites:

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/economic-vision

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/u...ade-reform

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

---

OK, glanced at them, but I too am tired. Going to call it a night and get back to you tomorrow after coffee. 

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Simple solutions for simple minds.

---

"Hillary has been mean to me"

 

The same guy has been mean to her. What about all o/f his "anti-Clinton" ads? They are having the same effect.

---

This is why he says we look like a third-world nation, and were many topics he touched on:



<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/'>http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/</a>

Have you ever been to a third world nation? Do you know the definition of third world nation? America is not a third world nation. I promise you.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Have you ever been to a third world nation? Do you know the definition of third world nation? America is not a third world nation. I promise you.

It's an EXPRESSIONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

---

I watched the entire debate, and I thought she won easily.   He missed so many opportunities, I am left to wonder, did he prepare at all?   It's like he just went out there and winged it for 90 minutes.   Emails?  Very little.  Benghazi?  Nothing.  Basically admitting he has paid no federal income taxes for the last few years?  Wow.  He called himself smart for doing that.  That will come back to haunt him.  She said his tax plan was basically trickle-down tax cuts for the very wealthy.  Did he deny it?  NO.  He just responded that the wealthy will create a lot of jobs with their tax cuts.  Basically, all he did was express anger without any specifics.  Nafta?  He just says it's terrible, it's bad, no specifics to back it up.  He says we have crumbling infrastructure, terrible airports, etc, but how would he pay for fixing that when we are $20 trillion in debt?  He just says things are terrible, the worst they've ever been, but no specifics beyond that.  

 

The Clinton Foundation?  Why did he not say anything about that?  He can't blame the moderator, Lester Holt just asked a question and allowed the candidates to give any answer they wanted.   He had 90 minutes and not one mention that I can recall about the Clinton Foundation.  He could have talked about that any time he wanted to. 

 

She baited him into defending himself, and he either forgot what he needed to say about her, or he was totally unprepared.  

 

He came across as incompetent and thin-skinned.   Will it make any difference?   Only if people watch the debate and think for themselves, and don't go to their opinion leaders for guidance.  But if people watched that debate and then went to Fox News and the NY Post looking for someone to tell them why Trump won, then the debate won't make any difference at all. 

---

I just started reading this thread from page 1.  I find it interesting that there are 4 or 5 insults towards people that support Trump.  Trump supporters are supposed to be the mean, nasty ones and here we are the non Trump supporters are the ones slinging it.

---

Because our airports are garbage-tier. Ever fly into Miami International? Absolute trash. I have flown into international airports across South and Central America that completely outclass it, and their GDP is a fraction of ours.

 

It's been a while since I traveled international...  But the airport in Germany and the Tel-Aviv airport that I have most recently visited were not any more wonderful than the airports I've traveled through in the USA.  

 

I've never been to Miami's airport, but I've been to O-Hare just 3 weeks ago, and travelled through Atlanta and Dallas just in July.  Not to mention Jacksonville's airport is also very nice pleasant to go through.  Atlanta's airport in the 90's and early 2000's was a garbage.  They have done a great job updating their facility...

 

I don't know...  I just don't agree with the trump approach.  Yeah, there are problems in the USA.  But to listen to him, we are the stupidest nation on earth, our black and brown people live and behave like animals and need to be treated as such, and every other place is way better than us.

 

I'm sorry, but that type of mentality doesn't work for me.  It's hyperbolic and just flat out wrong.  Point out what's wrong and give solutions to fix it. I'd wish he's stick with being a normal candidate. But then again, that's not who he is.

---

It's an EXPRESSIONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

Trump's vision of America is that everyone is unsafe. Everything sucks. We lose everywhere. Nobody but him can fix it. And if you don't believe him, you are to be discredited. He was exposed last night and was completely unprepared. His shtick works when a thousand worshippers are kneeling before him with their mouths wide open, but when he is on his own left to defend his policies and views, he is a scatterbrained clown.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

I was a little disappointed that one of the things he said went sailing through, and that was, when he was asked about how he intended to stop companies from moving factories to other countries, and his answer was, put a tax on the stuff they would make and import back into the US.   I think this is a serious policy proposal that deserves debate, but I guess Clinton figured that saying anything about that would not be to her advantage, so she let it go. 

 

My personal reaction to such a proposal is that it amounts to raising taxes to save jobs.  I don't want to pay more for stuff just to save someone else's job.  I'm not sure it would work, anyway.  If Carrier Air Conditioner doesn't build a plant in Mexico, some European company will, and they will have a cost advantage and will sell their stuff at lower prices in the US.   So what would we do about that?   Charge an import tax on their stuff too?   Where does this end?  Do we just erect a wall around the US and let no imports into this country?   Raising taxes on imported goods is a dumb idea, it would lead to other countries doing the same thing to us, and that would probably lead to a world wide recession or depression.  

 

Raising taxes to support jobs is not something I would expect from a Republican.  Maybe an extreme liberal democrat, but not a Republican. 

---

My personal reaction to such a proposal is that it amounts to raising taxes to save jobs.  I don't want to pay more for stuff just to save someone else's job. 

 

This is ultimately what it comes down to. Are you willing to spend more on consumer goods to get people off of welfare/minimum wage and into full-time employment. It is a tough balancing act. People like their cheap Wal-Mart goods. Perhaps this is where morality comes into play and we have to decide if our neighbors more important than our cheap iPhones.

 

Of course the micro and macroeconomics are much more complicated that that, but it's the general idea.

---

I watched a couple minutes and then went back to MNF

---

Maybe... I thought the first 30 minutes were the best for trump... But I still think there were some good points Hillary made on the first 30 minutes as well...


I think you are right though... The numbers may not move all that much... But it might be a bump for her over the next week. Maybe a 4-6 percentage point bump by next week...

 

4-6 percentage points would be a huge bump.   I expect something more like a 1 point bump, mainly because there are so few open-minded people left in this country.   We're polarized, we've picked sides, and we aren't going to change our minds, no matter what. 

---

This is ultimately what it comes down to. Are you willing to spend more on consumer goods to get people off of welfare/minimum wage and into full-time employment. It is a tough balancing act. People like their cheap Wal-Mart goods. Perhaps this is where morality comes into play and we have to decide if our neighbors more important than our cheap iPhones.


Of course the micro and macroeconomics are much more complicated that that, but it's the general idea.

[BLEEP] wal mart

---

I was a little disappointed that one of the things he said went sailing through, and that was, when he was asked about how he intended to stop companies from moving factories to other countries, and his answer was, put a tax on the stuff they would make and import back into the US.   I think this is a serious policy proposal that deserves debate, but I guess Clinton figured that saying anything about that would not be to her advantage, so she let it go. 

 

My personal reaction to such a proposal is that it amounts to raising taxes to save jobs.  I don't want to pay more for stuff just to save someone else's job.  I'm not sure it would work, anyway.  If Carrier Air Conditioner doesn't build a plant in Mexico, some European company will, and they will have a cost advantage and will sell their stuff at lower prices in the US.   So what would we do about that?   Charge an import tax on their stuff too?   Where does this end?  Do we just erect a wall around the US and let no imports into this country?   Raising taxes on imported goods is a dumb idea, it would lead to other countries doing the same thing to us, and that would probably lead to a world wide recession or depression.  

 

Raising taxes to support jobs is not something I would expect from a Republican.  Maybe an extreme liberal democrat, but not a Republican. 

 

The reality is complicated.  The bottom line is that taxes shouldn't be raised on the vast majority of Americans.  But the corporations and billionaires have been getting tax breaks for way too long.  Hillary is right, trickle down economics doesn't work.  It's time they start paying thier fair share.

 

As for import taxes...  it's one way to go.  I think there are better ways to support business in the USA.  But in order to make american workers and middle class competitive takes investment in eduction, infrastruction, and creation of new industries.  That takes money.  Money that should be raised via increasing the taxes on corporations and the 1%.  

---

This is ultimately what it comes down to. Are you willing to spend more on consumer goods to get people off of welfare/minimum wage and into full-time employment. It is a tough balancing act. People like their cheap Wal-Mart goods. Perhaps this is where morality comes into play and we have to decide if our neighbors more important than our cheap iPhones.

 

 

 

You sound like a liberal democrat.  Raise taxes to help people. 

 

Republicans are for free markets and free trade.   Democrats are historically behind raising taxes and protecting dinosaur industries. 

 

My view is you can't stop the tide of history.  Factories are going to move overseas, they are going to produce cheaper goods, and we are all going to benefit from that.   The money we save will be spent on other stuff and that will create other jobs in other industries.   I think that's how free markets work. 

---

I just started reading this thread from page 1.  I find it interesting that there are 4 or 5 insults towards people that support Trump.  Trump supporters are supposed to be the mean, nasty ones and here we are the non Trump supporters are the ones slinging it.

 

Liberals are mean people with short fuses. It is a scientific fact.

---

4-6 percentage points would be a huge bump.   I expect something more like a 1 point bump, mainly because there are so few open-minded people left in this country.   We're polarized, we've picked sides, and we aren't going to change our minds, no matter what. 

 

Yeah, most people have made up thier mind...  It's gonna come down to turnout...  

---