Clinton v Trump Economic Plans

Which candidate has the best and most efficient means of boosting the American economy?

donaldjtrump.com/policies/economy

thebalance.com/hillary-clinton-2016-economic-plan-3305767

Other urls found in this thread:

hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/01/12/investing-in-america-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
clintontrumpforex.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=SgicDQHbV3M
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Clinton

Clinton

Cuck

Why?

running status quo, which is going to fuck everything up soon enough

trump on the other hand promotes isolationism, "bring back muh factory" mentality which is only going to end in raising tariffs, higher costs, a trade war with china and slashing taxes which is going to put more pressure on the US budget

don't forget less pollution.

Why is this even being asked?

Just about every economist and businessman worth a shit is for Hillary.

Thanks for correcting the record goys

Trump

im a tradesman and i have a business on the side

i give ZERO FUCKS about the economy at large. Hillary would raise taxes on me = vote for trump


also lol the dumb-ass economists sure did A BANG UP JOB over the past decade huh

Hi CTR!

Doesn't matter, neither will be able to pass any of it.

You Yanks forget for some reason that your country was set up to give very little real power to the president. It was this very deliberate thing that the founding fathers set up and congress and the president have been trying to make you forget ever since.

>i give ZERO FUCKS about the economy at large.
>buttmad when people can't afford to buy his shit in a crisis

kek, quality post my friend

I have a shit memory but even I can remember the donalds tax plan: hes going to lower taxes BIG LEAGE; shes going to raise taxes BIG LEAGUE

The President directs a lot of Congress's business and sets the term agendas.

While the President doesn't have much domestic power, she has a lot of domestic influence.

Gary Johnson

>asks why Hillary's economic plan is better than Trumps
>gets called ctr

Fuck off

Neither is perfect. Clinton is the usual spend spend spend spend Democrat, who will keep things pretty much as they are now and have been the past 8 years, but will also raise taxes on everyone, making the Middle class hurt more.

She'll make college and healthcare free, which will drive up the debt, and get into war with russia, which will most certainly break our bank, as well as irradiate large portions of the country.

Trump Meanwhile, will slash taxes across the board, and impose trade tariffs on American Companies that make their goods outside of the US. he'll probably deregulate and offer corporate tax incentives to get those companies to bring production back here.

on the other hand, his tax slashing will probably starve the govt.

the ideal solution is a strategic mix of both higher taxes, (taxes go up proportionally to your income) AND deregulation/corporate tax incentives, with a sprinkling of protectionist tariff

the gov makes more than enough let alone from taxes

Those businessmen run the economy mate, even if they do fuck up
Everybody thinks they can do a better job for some reason

Corporate or overall? Trump's tax cuts are massive, benefits investors. But the health of the country would do better under Clinton who'll blow up the debt less.
>taxes on the middle class
She only wants tax raises for those above 250k.

>drive up debt
Unfortunately yes, but it's an easy choice, even the most conservative estimates say Trump will do worse for the debt. Under Clinton it's 80% of GDP, under trump 100%

>Trump tax cuts
Which he has not adequately explained how he's going to pay for, under than a vague statement about reducing bureaucracy

>tariffs on American companies producing outside the US
He can't do that. He can only tariff things coming in the US. Most of the big corporations sell to global markets. I'm not sure if he considered it would also drive imports of raw materials needed for factories up.

Shilling aside and bias aside. If I am an elementary school teacher and I dont make that much as it is, I cannot afford for things to sky rocket up. But I also want to make sure I can keep my job and afford to live just fine. Which presidential candidate offers more to me as a middle class elementary teacher?

> taxes = economy
mouth breather detected

>She only wants tax raises for those above 250k

Because historically rich people always pay their taxes, right?

tax raise by how much? 0.0001% tax raise is still a tax raise. Fuck that lying cunt. At least trump knows how to run a business and he might run your shitty country like a business and perhaps make it great again?

Funny, as a member of the working poor. I have no choice but to vote for Hillary or starve. We can vote opposite and be cancel twins.

"Trump KNOWs how to run a business",lol?

Who gives a shit about China? Nuke beijing send the entirety of the United States Armed Forces to wipe out Chinese industry. You will force the world to buy American. Stop being a faggot pussy

>she

>trump on the other hand promotes isolationism, "bring back muh factory" mentality which is only going to end in raising tariffs, higher costs, a trade war with china and slashing taxes which is going to put more pressure on the US budget
that sounds fucking awesome

I don't know why people pretend there's any way to give the economy a stimulus and creat jobs other than lowering taxes. Trump's tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses would be God tier

>on the other hand, his tax slashing will probably starve the govt.
>on the other hand, his tax slashing will be extremely successful on all fronts
BASED
A
S
E
D

Because what about muh low-class spics and niggers. Who's gonna pay for their welfare?

Because I can guarantee you it WON'T be the higher-class.

>Who's gonna pay for their welfare?
you wont need to if you strip out the minimum wage and reduce taxes on small businesses to next to nothing

let cities partner with non-profit organizations that help the poor and homeless to incentivize businesses to give them cheap labor. Works in the shithole cities where I live in NY

We could always just kick them out.

>doesn't want cheap labor actually stimulating local economies

I like to prioritize the locals and not just the few that profit off of the cheap labor.

>We could always just kick them out.
Yea kick out all these hombres kek

He has over 500 businesses ya retard.

>You will force the world to buy American

and who will buy your overpriced shit? Unless you lower your costs via internal devaluation the only people that will be able to afford american services will be the EU, which is rejecting your shit trade agreements

lowering taxes for middle class and small businesses is never a bad thing, but when you're running a budget deficit and debt-gdp ratio over 100%, you're facing a problem, petrodollar notwithstanding. Honestly, whoever is elected is going to have to face the next recession and IMF has already said that the next recession will probably end in most of the involved countries defaulting.

Trump wants to make the US a third world manufacturing country because his base is a bunch of no-skill, retarded hicks.

Clinton will continue to promote globalist ideals, at the expense of the aforementioned no-skill, retarded hicks.

So ask yourself, are you a no-skill, retarded hick, or do you have what it takes to survive in the global economy?

This isn't /pol/. There is no debate about this from an economical perspective.

trump in the long term

I'm not American stupid nigger

I don't get why people are so eager to disparage blue collar whites, who are at least hard working if not intellectually gifted. Spic/Nigger wellfare queens and hoodlums on the other hand are protected classes

>defends hard-working whites
>disparages "spics"

You're too stupid to live.

>muh hard working spic meme
get out of my country, taconigger

To be fair the Hispanics that do work; work just as hard as whites. Based on my personal experiences and others I know.

Blacks on the other hand...

Yea because the 60's 70s and 80's are so well known for their lack of pollution

Probably Clinton, honestly. You wouldn't care about the estate tax hike and assuming you teach public school the increased spending would offset the slight tax increase for your bracket and (I'm assuming) the increase in medicare deductions.

Trump's plan would straight up lower tax, but depending how heavily he relies on debt it's hard to say how your salary would change. His trade proposals wouldn't benefit you as you don't work in the industrial sector, but it probably won't benefit you either (e.g. might cause recession).

>POTUS can raise or lower taxes unilaterally, without Congressional approval
fucking hell, this site is dumb

Shut up, redneck. Working class southern whites are among the dumbest people on the planet. The American South is a cesspool of idiots left behind by the global economy, too stupid to figure out new skills.

I bet you're voting Trump. Yes yes, I'm sure the billionaire globalist will bring your shit-tier manufacturing jobs back.

Clinton definitely.

Trickle down economics should work, in theory. But it only works *if* businesses use tax deductions to create jobs. They can also choose to hoard it.

Trickle down economics requires a coalition. Trump hasn't told us of a single CEO whose pledged to hire more people if we lowers his taxes. We don't know what companies will hire, in what industries, for what titles and and what the pay is. We don't know if the new jobs are permanent or temporary positions.

What we do know, is that a lot of poor people work at and buy their shit at Walmart.

If Trump wins and lowers taxes on the rich and raises taxes on goods made in China and assembled in Mexico, then straight out the gate he's *increasing* rather than decreasing the wage gap, while simultaneously taking revenue *away* from social services even though more people will need social services.

And he's doing this based on faith/hope/assumption that the wealthy will create jobs with their tax deductions and give away all the money Trump just gave them.

***
Or.

We could elect Clinton. Who wants to jack up taxes on the Waltons and their giant bloated corporation. And use that money to send the staff and customer base of Walmart to college and trade school so they can get better jobs.

***
Trump wants to spend about $100 billion on one giant new wall. Paid for by Mexico who in turn refuses to pay.

Clinton wants to spend about $100 billion repairing existing roads and bridges. Paid for by the Waltons. Who are stuck here and whose businesses are stuck here and who won't uproot and move businesses away in defiance because they have shareholders and an obligation to shareholders to increase revenue.

***
Is /pol/ still in here?

Come at me you little toys. Accuse me of being with CTR. Debate with paranoia and memes rather than substance. This has been a great strategy why just look at those polls.

They take out hefty deductions, yes. It's probably better than outright saying you want to cut taxes.
Her plans are on her site. The most important one is a 30% minimum effective tax rate on incomes above 1 million aka the Buffett tax, which means loopholes and deductions don't affect it.

hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/01/12/investing-in-america-by-restoring-basic-fairness-to-our-tax-code/

Look man I too think voting for Trump is suicidal but I call bullshit on Clinton taxing "the Waltons" who dont even run Wal-Mart anymore

Sure that's fine. I just threw their name out to illustrate a point.

We're not gonna lower the wage gap by lowering taxes on the rich and jacking up taxes on imports.

That's just gonna make Walmart and Target cut back on new job openings, cut back on hours for existing job openings, and raise prices on literally everything.

>This is why my candidate should win.
>But this event is just made up, and theoretical.

The embodiment of delusional...

Btw dipshit, Clinton is a bought out, corrupt, globalist sociopath, she will run the world into the ground.

With that being said, its going that way regardless of who wins.

You're focusing on a very minute point. You're being deliberately obtuse and distracting the conversation with trivia.

If taxes for CEOs and corporations is lowered, while raising taxes on goods imported from China and Mexico, resulting in lower hours and higher inflation ... how will this fix the wage gap?

It won't. Trump will increase the wage gap.

The wage gap prohibits banks from funding small business loans. It stifles commerce. It keeps people from seeking health care services. It holds us back.

Every small business owner will tell you, they don't want tax cuts, they want customers. The wage gap stifles customers.

how do you force businesses to create jobs and put back into the economy rather than horde?

>surplus and staying out of debt is more important than great healthcare and education for those who cannot afford it themselves
This is by far, the most FLAWED liberal argument. So fucking stupid. It's a vicious cycle! No wonder you're in an economic shithole. Fuck your country for making Malcolm imitate your economic policy. We were doing fine.

Hillary

>30% minimum effective tax rate on incomes above 1 million
>finally become millionaire
>haha no just kidding you only have $700,000
what a fucking joke of a worldview. Anything higher than 20% is unreasonable at any level of money
should be
>20% at $1 mil+
>15% at $300k+
>10% below that
and starting at $30k gradually reduce the rate to a flat 0 at $20k

>by lowering taxes on the rich and jacking up taxes on imports.
no, but you will by lowering taxes on everybody and jacking up taxes on imported good made by american companies

You're on the Veeky Forums board. Not /pol/

Anyone here with a lick of business sense will tell you that some 24 year old kid with a $35,000/year call center job doesn't want me 2% more on his tax return while prices grow by 35%. A 24 year old kid with a $35,000/year call center job wants the opportunity to get a better education and wants at least $50k/year and would rather make $100k/year helping put together new roads and bridges while inflation stays flat.

that's a weird dichotomy; why do you assume that tax cuts leads to more inflation whereas muh free college and muh roads doesn't?

it's a completely delusional mindset

marginal tax rate 80% at $1 mil+

debate me

This isn't delusional. I'll explain again.

Trump wants to do two things. Lower taxes for millionaires and corporations by 35%, and raise taxes on goods imported from China and Mexico by 35%.

Now we already know that if you lower taxes for millionaires and corporations, they *don't* create jobs with the savings. They hoard the money. Reagan proved this, Bush confirmed this.

So there won't be any new jobs, at least none worth pursuing.

But. You couple the failed concept of Reaganomics trickle down theory, with a huge increase on goods imported from China and Mexico and sold in Walmart and Target. And to be perfectly frank, everywhere else as well.

You do this and what. You think that corporations will be like "oh well hey we just got a tax cut so I guess we can eat it at the shipping docks" - you think they'll say this?

You think they'll be like "oh hey how about we admit we were wrong about China and uproot everything and just make factory jobs here" - you *really* think they'll say this?

Remember they have shareholders demanding (and deserving) big returns every quarter.

So. No.

Trump raises import taxes and all that's gonna happen is costs of every good sold in every store, every piece of steel, every car, every bottle of medicine .. all of it, is going up 35%.

Under Trump we'd experience a wider wage gap. Which decreases the size and influence of the middle class. Which fucks our economy.

Corporations pay no taxes. Prices go up at Walmart while hours get cut.

It's a bad fucking idea. Every major economist in the world agrees with me on this.

Trickle-down only works when you've got something the wealthy can spend their cash on. There's no point in giving the wealthy more money if it's still not palatable to invest domestically. There's ways in which Trump's plan could work but you'd need to be very careful the order in which you do things.

Meanwhile: tax & spend makes the government look really productive, which people like, but makes the economy less liquid, which harms businesses that can't depend on foreign markets to prop up sales. Hillary Clinton? Making economic decisions that favour multinational corporations over small domestic businesses? Well, I never. Scandalous.

They are both pretty meh, but Donald's is a more downbeat meh.

Trump.

i thought CTR was just a joke. I now believe the CTR is real.

>have no choice but to vote for Hillary or starve.
Exactly what the democrats have been doing for decades. Get people dependent on the government so they can control everything.

The wall is about 10 billion dollars

Economy won't really matter once the US is turned into a nuclear wasteland.

who /investinginbottlecappressers/ here

short term? clinton, of course.

long term (next 50-100 years)? trump.

medicine tastes bad when it's in the form of a short term recession, but you still gotta take it.

>trickle down theory
No such thing.

>Trump raises import taxes and all that's gonna happen is costs of every good sold in every store, every piece of steel, every car, every bottle of medicine .. all of it, is going up 35%
First, America still makes things; there's no increase on prices from such things. Second, he specifically mentioned Mexico in that regard. Third, even if was in general, that'd encourage domestic manufacturing which absorbs the unemployed and people not currently in the labor force and turns them into taxable sources of demand.

>Every major economist in the world agrees with me on this.
Nice bandwagon fallacy.

and stay there

>24 year old kid with a $35,000/year call center job doesn't want me 2% more on his tax return while prices grow by 35%
His biggest budget items are housing, transportation, and food, none of which are going to be affected to the extent you indicate.

Clinton, without doubt

>trickle down doesn't exist
This meme has to end, trickle down is a term originating during Regan's era that describes his policy of lowering taxes to stimulate the economy.

>America makes such things
Hah, what? Look at the label of anything in your house. It's not made in the US. The few things that are use raw materials from other countries. This is an economic reality that tariff supporters don't want to accept.

>they disagree with me therefore they're from pol

You won't have customers or business when the economy tanks

>This meme has to end
2 seconds in google: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

>There is no "trickle down" economics as defined by economists
>The term originated in United States politics.[4]:27–8 It has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."

TL;DR, It's just leftists mindlessly regurgitating what they hear from their "news" sources--that is to say, comedians.

>Look at the label of anything in your house. It's not made in the US
Hmm, seeing a lot of "made in America," weird. Although, even a rudimentary knowledge of the US economy would tell you that, pic related.

>This is an economic reality that tariff supporters don't want to accept.
The economic reality that free traders don't want to accept and go through great contortions to avoid admitting is that no nations have ever been built upon themselves using free trade--despite tremendous effort by free traders. Every single great or noteworthy nation has gotten there through protectionism at some point.

The idea we would still be trapping beavers and trading cloth for tobacco with the natives without protectionism seems like a bit of a meme to me.

oy vey op is a putz

No, we wouldn't because there's this thing called "technological advancement." However, free trade breeds dependency and without our few hundred years of protectionism, we would have been, and still would be totally dependent on the British economically. Instead, while Britain adopted free trade theory in the 1800s, America and Germany under protectionism soared past the British economically.

The original plan as espoused by free traders negotiating with Japan (which was economically worse than many African nations at the time) following WWII was for japan to 'specialize' in fishing and export tuna to the US while Japan would import US cars. As we know, Japan gave them a big ol' "fuck you," totally rejected free trade and protected its industry, and is now a globally important economic and export powerhouse. Japan rejected becoming a nation of fishing villages and it worked out wonderfully for them.

and to think i presumed this board to be free from the shills blight

This board may be mostly Republican/conservative, but it isn't full of retarded deadbeats like /pol/.

One slide.

Trump knows how to create and stick to budgets.
Trump knows how to delegate to the right people.

Clinton's entire career has been a clusterfuck of incompetence.

According to this site Clinton has better chance to win:

clintontrumpforex.com/

I read Trumps 100 day proposal

I really like it, hes cleaning up infrastructure, putting billions into tax cuts for people to build properties, which will provide jobs and better infrastructure

His whole removal of lobbyists will help a lot with corruption in the government

Thanks for contributing.

No one seems to have posted this, so here goes:
youtube.com/watch?v=SgicDQHbV3M

Dude he's declared bankruptcy what .. how many times?

You know how many times Clinton declared bankruptcy? 0. You know how many times I declared bankruptcy? 0.

You know why people declare bankruptcy? Spending more than they have.

lel

Either CTR, or more likely, an ebin troll pretending to be CTR for easy (You)s detected

Of course. There is technology, climate, stability, population, urbanizaton, natural resources, ease of transportation and access to world markets, lots of things. Trade policy is a minor factor yet you treat it like the sole determining factor that made Japan, Germany and America and broke Britain.

Also mercantilism, high tariffs and protectionism was the norm, plenty of countries were protectionist and did not develop much industry.

> 'specialize' in fishing and export tuna to the US while Japan would import US cars
Again, this is an exaggeration like the idea we'd still be trading pelts.

This doesn't into account all the effects of these policies. You raise tariffs on steel and now a dozen other businesses must pay higher prices for steel. You build a ton of roads because they look good on paper, but in reality they will erode before the economic benefits outweigh the costs.

>You know how many times Clinton declared bankruptcy? 0. You know how many times I declared bankruptcy? 0.
So you vote for Hillary because you're successful? SHILLARY CONFIRMED TO SERVE THE RICH!!!

Luckily that was never our policy, and isn't Trump's policy.

Vote Hillary if you're doing good and you want little change.

Vote Trump if you want to enforce major changes. If a populist gains power in the world's most important economy, things are gonna change big time.

>Trade policy is a minor factor
It really isn't. All these third world countries which have been scammed into embracing free trade under the Washington Consensus will never, I repeat, *never* become an industrialized first world nation under that system. They will be perpetually dependent on hand outs because they have no industries that can compete with the superior infrastructure of the west and free traders say subsidies and tariffs are bad. This just produces a negative reflexive cycle of dependency where they import basic things from the west because they can't compete due to a lack of efficient infrastructure or equipment. It reinforces poverty in these countries and they will *never* climb out through free trade.

On the other hand, if they rejected free trade, subsidized efficient infrastructure and equipment to bring down the cost of domestically produced goods while imposing tariffs on goods to bring in tax revenue and support industry, they can evolve toward becoming a major economy.

>mercantilism
Who's talking about mercantilism? What, do you think mercantilist nations were the only ones with protectionism? You also realize that mercantilism purposefully oppressed the working class, right?

>this is an exaggeration
No, that's literally what free traders prescribed--that Japan 'specialize' in fishing because they had a 'comparative advantage' in it. This is not unlike when the world bank pushed Malawi into ending agriculture subsidies, 'specializing' in a cash crop, and importing food with the money earned; this just led to a famine in Malawi which only ended after Malawi subsidized fertilizer again, deeper than ever which then yielded a fantastic following crop harvest. A similar kind of delusional idealism led to the great famine of Ireland.

How many of them went bankrupt?

I'll bite