Donald Trump

Trump Says Clinton is the Candidate of the Past—but His Ideas Are All Old News

The GOP candidate's economic plan comes down to vague tax cuts, deregulation, and unwinnable trade wars.

|

CreditElaine Cromie/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom

Presidential nominee Donald Trump wants "to jump start America," and thinks "it won't be that hard." In a speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, he outlined his plan for the economy. It boils down some tax cuts, eliminating regulations, and engaging in trade wars.

A significant portion of the speech was spent attacking Hillary Clinton. Trump noted that her outdated policies have been tried and failed all over the country. Detroit, he says, is an example of such failure. The city's unemployment is twice that of the national average, capital income is half of the national average and over 40 percent of the city's residents live in poverty.

Eight years of Democratic rule in Detroit, he remarked, led to 7 million of Americans added to the ranks of those in poverty, 12 million added to the food stamp program, and the labor force participation rate at its lowest in forty years. He repeated inaccurate claims that American household are making $4,000 less than 16 years ago but rightly noted that the official unemployment number of 5 percent does not give an accurate picture of the health of the labor market.

Ignoring the role played by big spenders like George W. Bush, he blamed the Obama-Clinton tax, spending, and regulation policies for producing "1.2 percent growth, the weakest recovery since the Great Depression and a doubling of the national debt."

According to Trump, Clinton is "the candidate if the past. Ours is the campaign of the future." Never mind that Trump's description of the brilliant future he envisions for America resembles Detroit in the 1950's.

But there were a few good surprises in the speech like his embrace of school choice: Milton Friedman's idea that every child deserves a good quality education, and that every parent deserves to choose that education for their children. His energy plan, if well-designed, could also create some serious economic growth.

Trump also deserves major kudos for promising to overhaul our regulatory regime. He would first implement a temporary moratorium on new agencies' regulations. Second, he would ask "every federal agency to prepare a list of all the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs." These regulations would then be eliminated.

If implemented, this part of the plan could do more to improve the economy than anything else. Regulation, at the federal, state, and local level is pervasive and impose significant costs on businesses. But misery is spread around as companies shift these cost onto customers in the form of higher prices, onto employees in the form of lower wages and onto investors in the form of lower returns. Cumulatively they cause a serious drag on economic growth and trigger job losses. A 2013 article in the Journal of Economic Growth by John Dawson and John Seater finds that GDP had been reduced by a surprising $39 trillion over the period 1949 through 2005 due to regulation. That's $129,300 per person by 2005.

His tax plan is not bad either. It would broaden the base by getting rid of loopholes (such as carried interests) and lowering the tax rates. He promised to work with Congress to move from a 7 bracket tax system to one with the three rates of 33 percent, 25 percent, and 12 percent. We all could use some tax simplification in our lives as Americans waste massive amount of time and money complying with the current tax code.

Unfortunately, he would also make the tax code more complex with an unlimited tax deduction for child care costs. This awful, populist policy would not only be expensive without any chance of growing the economy, but it would also be unfair to low income parents who don't benefit from tax deductions, stay at home mothers, and of course, childless Americans.

The best part of the tax plan is probably the reform of the corporate income tax system, which would cut the rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. He would also try to induce American companies to bring income parked abroad to avoid being double-taxed by offering a 10 percent tax rate on repatriated income.

Without any details, it is hard to assess this part of his plan too. For instance, would companies be forced to bring their income back? How long would the offer stand? Either way, I am usually opposed to repatriation taxes since good economic states that income should only be taxed where earned—in this case abroad.

The rest of the speech was mostly garbage. First, there is all the stuff he didn't talk about like the need to cut spending, to end cronyism, and to reform entitlement programs that are the main drivers of our future enormous debt.

Then, there's the stuff he talked too much about like his backward views on trade. While we should celebrate that Trump refrained from dumping on immigrants like he usually does, he once again used his speech to assert that free trade created more losers than winners in the United States. To that end, he spent a significant amount of time harping on how "Hillary Clinton has supported the trade deals stripping this city, and this country, of its jobs and wealth. She supported Bill Clinton's NAFTA, she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization, she supported the job-killing trade deal with South Korea, and she supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."

He says that if elected president he would pull back from TPP and NAFTA, as well as renegotiate trade agreements. I don't have enough space here to go into how wrong Trump is on trade but I would like to highlight a few points. First, as Cato Institute and trade expert Dan Ikenson concluded in a recent study, while not all of TPP is pleasing to free traders, "the TPP would be net liberalizing—it would, on par, increase our economic freedoms."

Also, many of Trump's concerns about protecting intellectual property are actually an important part of trade agreements like TPP, which he opposes. TPP was also designed as a way to create an alternative market to China, which Trump seems so afraid of.

In addition, imposing tariffs on other countries means they too will raise their tariffs on us. That will result in more expensive products for American consumers, and a harder time for American exporters to sell their goods abroad. No one wins a trade war.

Finally, as John Cochran write in a new book published by Hoover Institution called Blueprint for America, "Six months of xenophobic political bloviation do not overturn centuries of experience. Trade and immigration are good for the US economy." He adds, "Two centuries of economic scholarship have only deepened and reinforced these lessons." Not for Trump apparently.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson, Lilly King Wins Gold Over Yulia Efimova, Erdogan and Putin Meet in Russia

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Two out of three isnt so bad.

    1. Worked for Meatloaf.

      1. I’m making $96 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $120 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss.
        Just working on the internet for a few hours.
        This is what I do.——————- http://bit.do/GvGO0

    2. I’m so old, I remember when almost everyone at Reason actually supported tax cats and deregulation.

      1. I am allergic to tax cats.

    3. Yeah, better than Hillary’s 0 for 3.

  2. It is of the third negates the first two.

    1. But,on Morning Joe it was stated that Hillary’s plan will pay for it;s self. This from a man who helped over see the auto bail out. He has a punchable face and,it seems someone did last night.

    2. Francisco seems unfamiliar with the concept of negotiation, even when it comes from a candidate who wrote a book on the subject.

      1. Less trade means fewer ships to plunder, so I don’t think we can trust his motivations.

        1. I”m with you matey !!!!! YARRR !!!!!

    3. Actually, the trade agreements suck.

      They do not foster “free trade” since the regulatory and tax frameworks of the participants are totally different. What they are is “race to the bottom” trade where companies move production to the country with the least regulation (including environmental) and the lowest taxes.

      Despite the headlines, the regulatory burden often trumps (pardon the pun) everything else and makes US production untenable. These trade bills do not, and can not, effectively address these issues. They suck.

  3. Trump also deserves major kudos for promising to overhaul our regulatory regime. He would first implement a temporary moratorium on new agencies’ regulations. Second, he would ask “every federal agency to prepare a list of all the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs.” These regulations would then be eliminated.

    If I thought he’d actually do this, I might think about possibly considering maybe, you know, actually voting him into office.

    1. ask “every federal agency to prepare a list of all the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs

      And I’m sure they’ll provide an exhaustive list.

      1. Could try the Jack Welch method:

        Have them list every regulation their department uses from top to bottom in importance. Cut off bottom 20% of each list.

        Wouldnt kill off the ones that really need killing, but would trim down the total number of regulations.

        1. I think you have that wrong. You cut the top 20% off.

        2. Women, minorities, and monuments hardest hit.

        3. Jack Welsh would also repeat the process again every year.

        4. Double it up.

          Have everyone submit a list of regulations to cut and fire the 20% who have the lowest aggregate cost savings from the regulations they recommend cutting.

      2. Right. The general idea to cut regulation is great, but if your plan is to ask the regulators to do it for you, then who gives a crap? Nothing’s getting cut like that.

        1. Exactly.

          What I would do would have an independent report on the regulations that are no-kidding required by law. For example, the HIPAA regs are authorized by Congress, but go way beyond the minimum necessary to satisfy the authorization (which was originally for health information electronically transmitted for billing and benefits purposes). So, 95% of HIPAA gets repealed by executive order, cutting it back to what Congress actually voted on. If Congress wants more, it can pass the repealed regs as a statute.

          With this one easy trick, you could probably cut the CFR by 80%. And there would be nothing Congress could do to stop you. Even if they passed a law, by a veto proof majority, prohibiting the executive from amending regulations, that wouldn’t stop me from keeping on, and I would take it to court as an unconstitutional infringement on the executive.

  4. Trump’s Economic Plan Amounts to Vague Tax Cuts, Deregulation, and Trade Wars

    One of those things is not like the others.

  5. Oh, good. I was afraid the shell game was just going to stop on higher taxes.

  6. Is this a libertarian website anymore? Since when is taking less tax revenue considered “expensive”?

    “Unfortunately, he would also make the tax code more complex with an unlimited tax deduction for child care costs. This awful, populist policy would not only be expensive without any chance of growing the economy, but it would also be unfair to low income parents who don’t benefit from tax deductions, stay at home mothers, and of course, childless Americans.”

    1. Childless Americans have been getting the shaft for decades; we’re kind of used to it by now.

      1. Seems like their problem is they’re not getting the shaft enough.

    2. Since when is taking less tax revenue considered “expensive”?

      Well, if it’s not offset by spending cuts or economic growth then it *does* grow the debt.

      1. But letting people keep more of their own money is not an “expense” that has to be paid. This is like re-labeling government spending as “investment”.

      2. Expensive is a relative term. If you make $10k a month a $300 meal isn’t expensive. If you reduce your income to $1k a month that $300 meal is very expensive.

    3. Is this a libertarian website anymore?

      Not really.

    4. Letting people keep more of their money is bad now if it isn’t done for the right reasons, I guess.

      1. It is bad because Trump is proposing it. If he revealed himself to be Jesus Christ in disguise, actually healed all of the sick, ended all wars and made everyone wealthy with a wave of his hand the TDS’ers would howl that all those things are bad. They truly are deranged. The established elite and those that suck at their teats are in full panic mode.

        Tax cuts are expensive? Not taking is giving. I did not expect this horseshit from De Rugy.

        1. I am coming around to the idea that TDS is actually a real thing. I mean, Trump proposes tax cuts and deregulation, and he’s still da debbil.

          1. It is wall-to-wall “Trump in crisis mode! Campaign reset!” from my local newsheads this week.

        2. I did.

          And I can’t imagine why you are surprised. Have you been reading her $hit lately?

      2. Did you notice the other day when Shrillary shrilly shrieked that she was going to raise taxes on the middle class (she meant to say the rich, but she’s a sick drugged up old woman with a neurological disorder), Reason completely ignored it?

        1. Even more telling was the thunderous applause from the astroturf.

    5. That’s a rather weak misstep to object to, especially considering it was in the middle of a bunch of praise of Trump’s plans.

      The obligatory virtue signaling didn’t come till later in the article.

  7. Serious question – Do you think he comes up with any of this himself or contributes in a meaningful way, or does he just get talking points from advisers and then stand in front of the teleprompter?

    1. If the latter, how does that make him any different then the vast majority of politicians?

      1. Most politicians seem to come in with an agenda. They may outsource the specifics to advisers and policy wonks, but they seem to have some sort of vision that they take ownership of.

        1. Really? I was sitting in a friend’s office, a friend that worked in PR and campaign management. A guy running for state rep came in and asked for her to write him a speech. She asked what he wanted to say, what his agenda was.

          ” I don’t care, whatever you think will get me elected.”

          1. Hence Clinton’s and Obama’s shifting positions on things like Gay Marriage and Illegal Immigration.

        2. yeah the primary agenda is their personal ascension to the monarchy.

          There is also the favors they owe to important backers, and I suppose a typical desire to be viewed positively by those who’s opinions they value, such as peers and celebrities.

        3. That’s just the public face. They want you to think that Hillary (for example) has a principled “way forward” for the country, when the reality is, it’s all carefully managed and crafted to get maximum votes.

  8. TRADE WAR!!

    You guys forgot the all caps. Just because you believe in free international trade does not excuse you from making an intelligent defense of it or allow you to engage in idiotic arguments against its opponents. The dangers of an actual trade war are greatly overblown. If you really believe that such a thing would be the end of the world economy, then why is everyone so certain that the reaction to any increase in US protectionism would be to immediately institute a dreaded TRADE WAR? If the Chinese or Europe slapped a bunch of tarriffs on US goods, would deRugy expect the US to respond with even more protectionism of their own? i don’t think so. Given that, I don’t see why she assumes the rest of the world would act the same way, especially when doing so would result in the dreaded TRADE WAR and the end of the world as we know it. Her entire argument rests on the assumption that every other world economy is suicidal and will start a TRADE WAR even though doing so is in no way in their interests.

    1. The other thing is if there is a dreaded TRADE WAR, the US currently runs an enormous trade deficit. It therefore has much less to lose in a TRADE WAR than the rest of the world. The US still has the largest market in the world. Yes, China may be larger in absolute terms but the Chinese market is nothing like as varied or as lucrative as the US market. This means countries are going to be loath to further endanger their access to that market overreacting to US protectionism.

      Lastly, markets adjust. All a tariff is is a tax. And like a tax, markets adjust to it. For that reason, the actual cost to the market of a tariff is less than it appears. Companies respond in a variety of ways. They figure out ways to use substitute products not subject to the tariff. Foreign companies move their factories here to get around the tariff. US firms pick up the slack and since there is competition here end up offering the produce at lower prices than they did so originally. That doesn’t make up for all the cost of a tariff. It is still a tax. But it makes up for a good part of it in many instances.

      This is not to say tariffs are benign. They are not. But they are not the end of the universe either.

      1. The other problem with “free trade” agreements these days is that they are anything but. The TPP is loaded with special handouts to many different businesses.

      2. I agree in that the threat of “trade war” could be overblown.

        If I were deRugy, I probably wouldn’t spend too much time talking about the potential of a “trade war”.

        The US is actually a very closed economy, perhaps around 80% closed. Meaning that most of the production/consumption/financing for US people occur in the US.

        (I know you’re thinking about cars or microwaves etc … But you also need to think about the big items: dwellings you live in, the food you consume, the services you pay for. Even a lot of cars we drive are made in the US.)

        In my opinion, a powerful argument is that trade barriers benefit a few (especially those at the top) in certain/narrow industries at the expense of the general public.

        Why can’t I buy cheaper/better cars from somewhere else?
        Why shouldn’t the US automakers compete for my business?
        If China wants to give me cheaper/free things, why should I turn them down?

        1. Ah, doesn’t that sound good? “If China wants to give me cheaper/free things, why should I turn them down?”

          And when a Chinese manufacturer saves money by dumping his heavy metal waste into the ocean rather than cleaning it up as the US manufacturer must do, that sounds good to you also? Or is it your position that all heavy manufacturing should be done in the place that regulates environmental damage the least? After all, it is your right?

          1. Separate the ‘free trade’ discussion from the topic of environment.

            Of course if there is a third-party-effect, where the manufacturer (let’s say China for example) impose a cost (dirty water) on a third party (let’s say the US), then yes, that’s a market failure. Yes, additional cost can and should be imposed on the manufacture to compensate the third party as completely as possible.

            There can be a free market solution for that.

            It doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be free trade.

            btw, as nearly everyone agrees, the TPP isn’t free trade. I was only stating arguments against having trade barriers; nothing new for the folks here (I hope)

    2. If the Chinese or Europe slapped a bunch of tarriffs on US goods, would deRugy expect the US to respond with even more protectionism of their own? i don’t think so.

      I’m not so confident. The reason people worry is because there is a historical precedent for people acting against their own interests in this regime.

      1. I am not talking about the US. I am talking about the rest of the world. The other thing that bugs me about reason’s writing on this issue is they never take into account the affect that fiat currencies have on trade. The US runs a trade deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. DeRugy and others are never honest enough to ask the question of where that money comes from. The books have to balance. If the rest of the world is sending $500 billion or whatever more goods and services here than we send to them, then we have to send them that much more cash to make up for the difference. Where does deRugy think that money comes from? It is borrowed or in our case often printed. That isn’t going to end well. Eventually we wont’ be able to borrow and printing more money will buy us less and less as the value of our currency goes down.

        If the world still ran on the gold standard, trade deficits would solve themselves. Eventually one country would run out of money, have a big recession and the deficit would reverse. Thanks to fiat currencies, that doesn’t happen anymore. Instead, we run trade deficits year after year. That is great except that we are just putting off an inevitable and nasty reckoning.

        1. They still solve themselves.

          As I have pointed out many times before, back when Japan was the big “problem” we were exporting Manhattan skyscrapers and Hawaiian golf courses to Japan to balance out the trade.

          But they didnt get counted in the official stats.

        2. So how is the US trade deficit funded?

          Let’s see, people in the US keep “buying” from foreigners, and what do you think the foreigners get?
          They get USD: green pieces of paper (or account transfer in these days).

          Then what do they do with the USD?
          Foreigners do buy US goods/services.

          What do they do with the excess USD? Well, if really nobody wants the USD because there are no goods/services they would like to buy from the US, they they could burn those green pieces of paper.

          But before they burn the USD, the FX rate will adjust; to a level that makes it worthwhile for foreigners to hold the USD.

          For the most part, foreigners have been holding USD to invest in “things” in the US. It’s generally easier to invest via purchasing securities rather than individual houses/business, but those happen all the time too.

          These steps do NOT involve printing money. It does not involve increasing the total US money supply.

        3. “The books have to balance”

          This is proof positive you have no clue what you are talking about, John. A trade deficit is not a budget deficit. There is no American “trade budget”. America on net imports more than it exports as value in our economy has rapidly shifted to intellectual property, technology and finance. I have no problem with the US becoming a country of managers, engineers & inventors.You can go live in China, get a GREAT JOB working as a cheaper version of a robotic arm working on an assembly line, and tell us all day long how only exports produce value.

          1. Easy Jay.

            The subject of current account and trade balance is often misunderstood.

        4. The books have to balance

          I think you need to go back to Econ 101

          1. John is correct in that “the books have to balance”, but it depends on the country’s foreign exchange rate regime.

            This is not the place for that kind of technical discussion!

  9. How is an unlimited tax deduction for child care unfair? Just because some people find themselves in circumstances where they don’t need to or can’t take advantage of the tax cut doesn’t mean it’s unfair to them.

    Is eliminating the death tax unfair because some people’s parents don’t have money? Hell no.

    1. Is eliminating the death tax unfair because Ron Bailey believes in the singularity and he will transcend to some undying form?

    2. It is only “unfair” if you think the government is entitled to everything it wants and anything it doesn’t take is the same thing as welfare. Letting people keep more of the money they lawfully earned is never unfair.

      1. It is only “unfair” if I can’t directly get a piece of that tax break.

    3. Eliminating the death tax is expensive, and besides, in any given year some people don’t die so it is unfair to them.

      I don’t know why I have to explain the simplest things to you people.

    4. How is an unlimited tax deduction for child care unfair?

      Agreed that letting people keep more of their money is always great but let’s not pretend this isn’t targeted a certain class of people for social-engineering purposes.

  10. Haven’t you heard, old useless disproven ideas are the new hotness.

    Because this time Socialism is totally going to work….

  11. Admittedly, Libertarians don’t really have a “new” idea either: we’ve been basically arguing the same things (min wage and other price controls bad, arbitrary regulation bad, freedom good) for the last 100 years or so. On of the signs of our fundamental principals: we believe the same thing year after year, and thus suggest the same thing year after year.

    Same as those principled Socialist, who never change their tune. I like to think our beliefs are reinforced and shown to be true every year, allowing us to grow more certain in the rightness of our belief, compared to the Socialist who every year goes “La La La Venezuela (or whatever the flavor of the week is) isn’t real socialism”, but as a Liberarian I am more inclined to see our secound greatest enemy as composed of delusional idiots incapable of seeing reality while we’re the fact based side.

    Our greatest enemy are of course the Cosmopolitans. Or whatever the current word is for Libertarians who are slightly more or less Liberarian than me.

  12. It is my opinion that tax cuts and tax breaks need to go at the same time.

    I thought you L’s are all about having a fair system for EVERYONE so that Everyone has the opportunity to rise and risk to fall, without government giving unfair advantage to someone.

    Otherwise, it is just a slippery slope that we have been on for decades

    1. I think you will find that most here would argue that the best solution is the elimination of the income tax altogether. It is too powerful a tool for targeting certain people, social engineering, and cracking down on those with disfavored political views. You will also find that no one thinks that is going to happen any time soon.

      1. Suthenboy,

        Before you talk about the “solution”, let’s make sure that we have the objective.

        It’s probably best to know our destination before we set the course.

        We need money to pay for certain basic government services (military, police force, courts etc ..)

        So how do we do that? Income tax is one way. It may not be the ONLY way, but it sounds relatively “fair” to me.

        Now the “targeting” generally occurs when it comes to tax “breaks”, not the tax itself.

        1. Single Land Tax.

          For what little the government needs to do, its more than enough money, and is the least bad tax. And as it only extracts rents, it, in theory, has no deadweight loss.

          And is anti-rent seeking too.

          1. Current total value of US land is ~$23T.

            A 6% single land tax split 3 ways evenly between Fed/State/Local governments (city and county can fight over last 3rd) would be about $460B for each.

            Its about 11.5% of the current federal budget. Seems about right to me.

            1. It isn’t easy to get the “right” land assessment value, is it?

              With the assessment process, values generally go up easier than they go down.

              The US has been experiencing decades of general price increases with few and short episodes of price decreases.

              In the event when prices decrease, who will jump on the idea of lowering property value? The people who work in front of computers all day, or the ones who work in constructions?

              1. It isn’t easy to get the “right” land assessment value, is it?

                No it isnt. But it is easier than getting the “right” taxable income assessment. Have your seen the size of the current tax code.

                In the event when prices decrease, who will jump on the idea of lowering property value?

                The owners? I actually had it happen once. My assessed property value dropped by $40 one year. Weird. I didn’t complain.

                The SLT has problems. EVERY tax form has problems. People just hate change and have their personal pet peeves.

                No one (much) argues against the strengths of the SLT, the lack of deadweight loss. The few who do argue it still concede the basic point that it has way less deadweight loss than any other tax form, even if it isnt actually zero.

              2. Income tax is so hard to calculate that they make me do it myself.

                For property tax, a local assessor sends me a card in the mail every year. And the land tax would be even easier than property tax.

                You can appeal it, but few do each year.

                Much better process than with income tax.

                I am in process of building a new house, I know exactly how much the empty lot is going to cost me. Makes the assessor’s job easy, at least for a few years. The 2017 assessment would be at exactly what I paid for it in 2016 (unless it was totally out of whack with the neighborhood) and might adjust every 2 or 3 years based on changes in the value of the neighborhood.

                6% on it would be slightly more than property tax would be. But I would happily pay that to avoid income tax and sales tax and car tax and gasoline tax and fica and many, many more.

                1. You’re right that income tax is too difficult to calculate.

                  There are all sorts of tax breaks and qualifying tests baked in income tax codes.
                  If there are all sorts of tax breaks, incentives, restrictions on your property tax codes; they’d be as cumbersome to calculate.

                  The people asked for them!
                  The politicians sold the concept decades ago, and the People bought it.

                  Please, stop lumping simple tax schemes with crony tax breaks as the same thing.

          2. Property tax as we have them should be abolished. It should be taxed only when transferred. Otherwise it amounts to no one really owning anything, but instead paying the government rent to continue utilizing what is ostensibly that person’s own property.

            1. Property tax as currently done would be abolished. The SLT would only be a tax on the value of the unimproved land. In other words the rents you get from owning the land. Your house/car/etc would be untaxed.

              I am a Georgist when it comes to land/rents, until such time as something presents a natural law justification for private property that I can accept.

  13. he would ask “every federal agency to prepare a list of all the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs.” These regulations would then be eliminated.

    *outright, prolonged laughter*

    That list will easily fit on the back of a business card.

  14. Based on the comments here, the past couple weeks of Trumpeteers bleating about “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has now developed into an entirely new ailment, which I will call “Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome”. They’ve become so obsessed with the idea that everyone is in on this big conspiracy to besmirch their Dear Leader that even rational, even-handed analysis of his speeches and proposals is met with wailing and gnashing of teeth. Sad!

    1. Did I miss it? If not, I eagerly await an even handed criticism of Cankles proposals.

  15. Hudson . although Henry `s article is flabbergasting, last thursday I bought a brand new Buick after having earned $7028 recently an would you believe ten-grand this past-munth . it’s actualy the most-comfortable job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away started making a nice at least $83.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  16. Hudson . although Henry `s article is flabbergasting, last thursday I bought a brand new Buick after having earned $7028 recently an would you believe ten-grand this past-munth . it’s actualy the most-comfortable job I have ever had . I began this 4 months ago and practically straight away started making a nice at least $83.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  17. The rest of the speech was mostly garbage. First, there is all the stuff he didn’t talk about like the need to cut spending, to end cronyism, and to reform entitlement programs that are the main drivers of our future enormous debt.

    I have a bridge to sell you. Plus I heard the 17th Amendment already ended cronyism in our time….or something like that.

  18. “He says that if elected president he would pull back from TPP and NAFTA, as well as renegotiate trade agreements. I don’t have enough space here to go into how wrong Trump is on trade but I would like to highlight a few points.”

    NAFTA and TPP are perfect? Unable to be improved?

    Trump could well aim to improve those without reducing net trade freedom.

    Projection is not confined to Donkeys.

  19. A tax cut without a spending cut is not a tax cut.

    1. Depends which side of the Laffer curve peak you are on.

  20. Okay. Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Hoover have the exact same economic policy during the Great Depression ? The economy did not get better, because you know, he engaged in trade wars, just like every other head of state around the world was engaging in trade wars ?

    1. From listening to some historians, you would almost get the impression that Hoover was the president during the entirety of the Great Depression, kind of like how you would almost get the impression that George W. Bush was still controlling our shitty-ass economy for the last eight years.

      1. Well FDR continued the same trade policies right up until the war.
        Burn it all down ???

      2. Sure let India, and China subsidize, and export cheaply made goods. Then my government can exchange them for subsidized, and cheaply made dollars.
        Idiocy all around.

  21. Veronique de Rugy. Keep writing for Reason.

    PS

    I Love You.

    Marry Me.

  22. good Normally, what we perform in this condition can be convert Download SHAREit This downloads SHAREit apk to your PC. Once scan the apk file, SHAREit iPhone nice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.