The 2016 presenditial debate

i know some of you listened to the debate, i want to get the best minds of Veeky Forums on this

>lowering company tax
>not letting companies leave
>re-negotiating trade deals
>student loans
>handling of the debt and job creation

go

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Rksd80-FCAw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

trump , obviously. you fucking idiot.

The biggest appeal is Trump wants a 20% tax cut on small business, which is whatever business you start within the next 4 years.

>which is whatever business you start within the next 4 years.
you and trump have a very different definition of "small business", trust me on that one.

Except we don't. He's cutting big and small business tax, as in simply cutting Corporate Tax from 35% to 15% for all US businesses.

Who ever gets in: your money, health, and pussy jumping on your dick is all that is going to matter. No one can change that.

You tell me, I was ready!
If Trump won: USDMEX increase because it would take Mexicans investors nervous.
If Clinton won: USDMEX decreases because it would give Mexicans inverstors stable.
Results? You tell me, everyone knew who won, the USDMEX will decreases every hour (every time a big Forex Market Center)
Germany 1am
London 2am
NY 7am

It's going to be a long night, but... profit :)

another screenshot

>If Trump won: USDMEX increase because it would take Mexicans investors nervous.
why the fuck would usdmex go up if trump won?

the usdmex is only up because anyone with a plant in mexico can reduce labor costs by having a weak mexican dollar.

having it go down suggests that they're afraid of a tariff from trump once hes in office.

Jill Stein for Prez Wooo!

Having less bankruptcies =/= a good thing
The average failure rate of entrepreneurial success within 4 years of the business' formation is 80% but once you break through that time barrier you have a much higher rate of success than failure on subsequent ventures but having no bankruptcies at all raises a HUGE red flag. Even Trump with his measly 4 chapter 11 bankruptcies is very suspicious but is easily explained by familial networking etc.

So to all the people actually buying this bankruptcy crap, don't. Trump was a poster boy for entrepreneurship since the 70s and that doesn't somehow switch because of bipartisan rhetoric being tossed around in election year.

>failure rate entrepreneurial success
entrepreneurial businesses*

>NOT running America bankrupt would be a HUGE red flag

Neocons, everyone.

You're a retard a small business has a very clear definition. Ever hear of the SBA?

>running America bankrupt

preety much this tbqvh familia

>tbqvh familia

lol do any of you idiots even actually understand economics? Where in the world has lowering taxes on businesses proven to effectively retain jobs?

Pro-tip. It has't. It's a reaganesque fantasy that got us where we are today.

The reality is the rich are all holding their money, and saving mega fortunes. Growing those megafortunes further isn't going to benefit the gen-pop in ANY way.

Try again biztards.

>The reality is the rich are all holding their money
in their comically large piggy bank or in dozens of king size mattresses?

>Ever hear of the SBA?
oh, that thing founded by democrats and constantly threatened with having their budget cut by republicans?

the GOP hates small business and the SBA, so if trump pretends to like it you can be sure he's talking about something other than the SBA definition.

dam ur retarded. If my taxes were just 15% lower i could hire, 2-3 more people on full time salary basis, coming out with a few more thousand in profit.
And its not like if taxes were lowered i wouldnt hire them, when taxes are lowered business in general picks up, as many people have will have more money to spend.
My business will hit a bottle neck if taxes are lowered and I didnt hire a couple more people.

The problem is these faggots keep voting democrat, then republican, then democrat and it fucks up with the stability of jobs. Since i need to lay them off as soon as a democrat raises taxes and gives us more socialism.

>implying america has not been bankrupt for a long while

How can you live in a country and not know about it's economical status?

>need to lay them off as soon as a democrat raises taxes and gives us more socialism.
in 2008-09 about half the businesses in my conservative little mountain town closed shop.

they blamed the election of Obama for the economic collapse and their decision to close up.

all of those businesses are open again, and not one is owned by the conservatives that had them before.

you guys are cutting off your own nose to spite your face. You say, "I can't afford the democrats' taxes!" Then other businesses that can afford them replace you. Proving you didn't deserve to succeed in the first place and gave up just to prove a point.

only point we see is cuckservatives can't business.

hey bullshit faggot, they are open again because they either refinanced their loans,and or hired part time workers faggot. Please, call these business up and ask what happened now that they are open again.
Did they lay off full time workers and hired only part time to get by obamacare? Did they increase prices? Decrease pay? I assure you they did not reopen in good news.
These are low quality jobs with no benefits.
Anyone hired under me gets matched 401k, overtime, top of the line insurance ( but $100 a month), private stock options if working more than a year, and a good schedule.
I can not do this with many people with high taxes. High taxes is the only factor not hiring more people right now.

>being an animal

I told you, they opened under new owners.

the real reason they closed is the economic downturn, not the election of a democrat.

You don't own a business, you can't even read.

and you're stupid enough to threaten your employees, saying "if the nation votes for a democrat you guys lose your jobs!"

fuck you, moron. If you did own a business you deserve to go under for that kind of stupidity. If you owned a business you'd know the cost of your taxes comes from your customers, not you.

if you owned a business that is. Maybe someday you will, and then you can lose it in some petty political display of childish emotions.

It was hilarious when Hillary blamed the banks and wall street for the 2008 recession when the banks never would've approved those sub prime loans if it wasn't for obongo

he was in diapers when subprime lending was going on.

What's up with the sniffing?

Will Trump legalize coke?

Obama started office in 2008

You realize this of course. The crisis started under George W's fed holding rates low to pump the economy just like what's happening now

You come from a hick town, these business never even heard of jobs with matching 401ks lol. Businesses with great jobs and benefits are only hurt with high taxes. Lower taxes and more people will be able to have these types of jobs.
Increase taxes and only good jobs will be part time 39.95 hours a week to get by the 40 hour week regulations and taxes. My friend is a franchise owner of a large national business him and managers always hire 39.95 hour workers when they can so they get higher salary at the end of the year.

you keep saying things you believe but the market disagrees with you.

did the ACA destroy all jobs with matching 401k's?

see, you're an idiot.

you want to own a business so you can shut it down and blame democrats. The problem is morons like you don't own businesses. Or if they do it's not for long.

Im glad I could get you to admit its the governments fault for the recession

Of course it wasnt solely Obama's fault but Hillary is putting 100% of the blame on wall street

>he thinks tax is what's preventing his business from reaching profitability

Trumples never cease to amaze with their spectacular brand of degenerate self-entitled enter and unparalleled idiocy

Actually, SBA loans kinda suck. If you look at the kind of strings that come attached you have to consider.

Thanks for correcting the record.

But actually, if businesses had a lower tax rate and didn't have the ability to offshore profits then government would be able to more aggressively grow their revenue without having to collect from more businesses.

You realise a government simply needs to require companies pay local tax in order to do local business and the problem is solved, right?

The profit they make on local business far, far exceeds any increase in tax it would incur, so nothing changes and no-one leaves.

This is really a typical example of low IQ individuals being tricked into thinking the issue is at all complicated in order to excuse overt corruption.

Self-entitlement*

t. plebeian phone-poster

The SBA? How about S-Corps? You know, like Koch Industries. It's legally a small business with $100b in revenue every year.

Shut the fuck up until you learn something.

>When Congress asks you to help them solve the recession, you probably know what the fuck you're doing.
or youre famous and they wanted to have a story for the donor parties
or want you to bring over some pizza and play call of duty with them
or whatever, it's congress not fucking... like... a place where smart people go to

what forex platform do you use?

>lowering company tax
America's company tax rate is on the high side. Lowering it is a sensible long term objective, but it's expensive and there are plenty of much cheaper ways to grow the economy. The company tax rate is not a serious impediment to economic growth because profitable companies can generally get credit to expand; the hard part is making the companies profitable in the first place, and lowering company tax won't help that.

>not letting companies leave
Silly idea, and probably unenforceable. And they certainly wouldn't be able to prevent the companies from subcontracting out to Foxconn.

>re-negotiating trade deals
Depends on the trade deals, but it you don't understand that the benefits of free trade outweigh its disadvantages, you're unlikely to be able to negotiate a better deal.

>student loans
The system should certainly be changed in favour of students.

>handling of the debt and job creation
That's two separate issues. Handling of the debt is the one issue that Trump might actually be stronger than Clinton on, because he seems to understand that there's no need for a country to be afraid of debt when it only borrows in the currency it prints. But his policy statements are inconsistent and he's made some very silly ones on this topic too.

Job creation: Clinton's much stronger as she understands that it's better to create high value jobs than to try to preserve low value jobs.

>his policy statements are inconsistent and he's made some very silly ones on this topic too.
Problem is his sole appeal is that he's a businessman and his constituency is operating under the mistaken notion that government should be run like a business.

and the further mistaken notion that they know how a business is run.

so he has to pander and pretend that not only do they know anything about business, but that he's the man to do what they want done.

ironic since if anyone has a history of balancing the budget and crashing the economy doing it, it's the opposition.

>he seems to understand that there's no need for a country to be afraid of debt when it only borrows in the currency it prints
yeah nah, he doesnt understand that. he repeatedly cited "da trillions of debt" during the debates as something that needs to be repaid.