To the NeverTrumpers....

[AZGAL]

TIM KAINE IS THE SCARY WIZARD BEHIND THE CURTAIN: WAKE UP AMERICA !!! yuk yuk yuk! Vampire from hell! He is a fake Catholic, a fake Hispanic, a fake "common man" (read Virginia elites) and maybe is a fake vice president. He is a real friend of George Soros however.

 

[Boss]

I see no reason to believe a tax break now will be any less of a disaster for the debt than the Bush tax cuts. I think you live in fantasy land. Your example of them working is Reagan and he tripled the debt. Clinton balanced the budget and he increased taxes. Now you can say it wasn't balanced if you want, but he sure had a better record than Reagan when it comes to debt.

Again, Brain... go look at the numbers, it's not that hard to do. Even the Bush tax cuts produced more tax revenues over 8 years. How is producing more tax revenue bad for the debt? The only way to reduce the debt is stop running deficits every year and you have to cut spending to do that.

Now you can keep on yammering this "tripled the debt" nonsense with Reagan but "triple" is a multiplier not a value. If our debt is $1 when I enter office and $3 when I leave, I've tripled the debt. That doesn't mean anything and to keep on pointing it out makes you look like a retard. Reagan increased the debt by $1.7 trillion in 8 years... Obama increased the debt an average of $1 trillion EVERY year. Yet, you are trying to argue that Obama was better because he didn't "triple" the debt. It's just a stupid kindergarten-type argument that shows you simply don't comprehend mathematics.

Clinton never balanced the budget. The national debt increased every year. You've been lying about this since he left office and I've given you the official website to check the numbers and challenged you to show us the year Clinton balanced the budget but you can't because he didn't. Clinton did increase taxes and we gained $4 billion in tax revenue as a result. Then, in 1994, he lowered taxes and we gained $600 billion as a result. Now if you want to say the debt grew more under Reagan than Clinton, that's fine... I won't argue that, but Reagan had a Democrat Congress who refused to cut spending and Clinton had a Republican Congress who demanded spending cuts. The fact still remains, no president has balanced the national budget since Andrew Jackson.

 

[Brain357]

I see no reason to believe a tax break now will be any less of a disaster for the debt than the Bush tax cuts. I think you live in fantasy land. Your example of them working is Reagan and he tripled the debt. Clinton balanced the budget and he increased taxes. Now you can say it wasn't balanced if you want, but he sure had a better record than Reagan when it comes to debt.

Again, Brain... go look at the numbers, it's not that hard to do. Even the Bush tax cuts produced more tax revenues over 8 years. How is producing more tax revenue bad for the debt? The only way to reduce the debt is stop running deficits every year and you have to cut spending to do that.

Now you can keep on yammering this "tripled the debt" nonsense with Reagan but "triple" is a multiplier not a value. If our debt is $1 when I enter office and $3 when I leave, I've tripled the debt. That doesn't mean anything and to keep on pointing it out makes you look like a retard. Reagan increased the debt by $1.7 trillion in 8 years... Obama increased the debt an average of $1 trillion EVERY year. Yet, you are trying to argue that Obama was better because he didn't "triple" the debt. It's just a stupid kindergarten-type argument that shows you simply don't comprehend mathematics.

Clinton never balanced the budget. The national debt increased every year. You've been lying about this since he left office and I've given you the official website to check the numbers and challenged you to show us the year Clinton balanced the budget but you can't because he didn't. Clinton did increase taxes and we gained $4 billion in tax revenue as a result. Then, in 1994, he lowered taxes and we gained $600 billion as a result. Now if you want to say the debt grew more under Reagan than Clinton, that's fine... I won't argue that, but Reagan had a Democrat Congress who refused to cut spending and Clinton had a Republican Congress who demanded spending cuts. The fact still remains, no president has balanced the national budget since Andrew Jackson.

1.7 trillion was a huge number in the 80's. The economy was much smaller then. I have shown you in many ways how bad Reagan was for the debt. You choose to live in fantasy land. Economists just don't support your theories on Trumps plan being good for the debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Mr. Trump’s tax cuts would be the deepest ever, reducing revenue $6.2 trillion in the first decade and mostly benefiting corporations and the highest-income Americans, the center said. Some middle-income families, however, would receive a tax increase.

 

[Brain357]

Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan
This paper analyzes presidential candidate Donald Trump’s tax proposal. His plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses, increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, and curtail many tax expenditures. His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.

 

[Brain357]

Trump Tax Plan Would Add Trillions To Debt; Clinton Plan Would Trim Deficits, Hike Taxes On Wealthy
Trump’s latest plan would reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, with nearly half of the tax cuts going to the highest-income one percent of households. Clinton, by contrast, would boost federal revenue by $1.4 trillion over the next decade, with the bottom 80 percent of households receiving tax cuts and the top one percent paying over 90 percent of the net tax increase.

 

[Boss]

I see no reason to believe a tax break now will be any less of a disaster for the debt than the Bush tax cuts. I think you live in fantasy land. Your example of them working is Reagan and he tripled the debt. Clinton balanced the budget and he increased taxes. Now you can say it wasn't balanced if you want, but he sure had a better record than Reagan when it comes to debt.

Again, Brain... go look at the numbers, it's not that hard to do. Even the Bush tax cuts produced more tax revenues over 8 years. How is producing more tax revenue bad for the debt? The only way to reduce the debt is stop running deficits every year and you have to cut spending to do that.

Now you can keep on yammering this "tripled the debt" nonsense with Reagan but "triple" is a multiplier not a value. If our debt is $1 when I enter office and $3 when I leave, I've tripled the debt. That doesn't mean anything and to keep on pointing it out makes you look like a retard. Reagan increased the debt by $1.7 trillion in 8 years... Obama increased the debt an average of $1 trillion EVERY year. Yet, you are trying to argue that Obama was better because he didn't "triple" the debt. It's just a stupid kindergarten-type argument that shows you simply don't comprehend mathematics.

Clinton never balanced the budget. The national debt increased every year. You've been lying about this since he left office and I've given you the official website to check the numbers and challenged you to show us the year Clinton balanced the budget but you can't because he didn't. Clinton did increase taxes and we gained $4 billion in tax revenue as a result. Then, in 1994, he lowered taxes and we gained $600 billion as a result. Now if you want to say the debt grew more under Reagan than Clinton, that's fine... I won't argue that, but Reagan had a Democrat Congress who refused to cut spending and Clinton had a Republican Congress who demanded spending cuts. The fact still remains, no president has balanced the national budget since Andrew Jackson.

1.7 trillion was a huge number in the 80's. The economy was much smaller then. I have shown you in many ways how bad Reagan was for the debt. You choose to live in fantasy land. Economists just don't support your theories on Trumps plan being good for the debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Mr. Trump’s tax cuts would be the deepest ever, reducing revenue $6.2 trillion in the first decade and mostly benefiting corporations and the highest-income Americans, the center said. Some middle-income families, however, would receive a tax increase.

Again, and I don't have anything better to do so I'll just keep repeating myself over and over.... Tax cuts do not produce less revenue, they create more. So when an "economist" tells you that tax cuts will reduce revenue, they are lying to you.

$1.7 trillion was a huge number in 1980 and it's a huge number today. The economy hasn't grown so much that $1.7 trillion isn't a huge number. But again, Reagan didn't have a line item veto so he couldn't do anything about Tip O'Neil's spending. He had to work with a Democrat Congress who refused to make spending cuts. He lobbied for a balanced budget amendment, in fact, he was one of the first on the national stage to do so.

The only place where I can find that Reagan ever said anything "in support" of a national debt was in 1984 when running for re-election. You same little smarmy pissants who don't REALLY give two shits about the debt were raking him over the coals because the national debt had just topped a trillion dollars. Just like "triple" you jumped on the sensationalism of the word "trillion" and tried to smear him with that. He explained that as long as the economy was growing, the national debt was sustainable because we would eventually grow our way out of it over time. But by-and-large, Reagan wanted to reduce the national debt through balancing the budget... he just never had a cooperative congress to do that. Clinton had a cooperative congress AND the Social Security Trust Fund and he STILL didn't balance the budget or reduce the national debt.

Now... You go right ahead and repeat your same tired old argument again like you have the past two pages of this thread, and I'll simply type another 4-5 paragraphs repeating my argument.... and we'll just see how long we can keep butting heads with no resolve. I've got all the time in the world and I've got the links to the data to back up every word I've said. So go right ahead and let's see if we can get this out of your system once and for all.

 

[Brain357]

I see no reason to believe a tax break now will be any less of a disaster for the debt than the Bush tax cuts. I think you live in fantasy land. Your example of them working is Reagan and he tripled the debt. Clinton balanced the budget and he increased taxes. Now you can say it wasn't balanced if you want, but he sure had a better record than Reagan when it comes to debt.

Again, Brain... go look at the numbers, it's not that hard to do. Even the Bush tax cuts produced more tax revenues over 8 years. How is producing more tax revenue bad for the debt? The only way to reduce the debt is stop running deficits every year and you have to cut spending to do that.

Now you can keep on yammering this "tripled the debt" nonsense with Reagan but "triple" is a multiplier not a value. If our debt is $1 when I enter office and $3 when I leave, I've tripled the debt. That doesn't mean anything and to keep on pointing it out makes you look like a retard. Reagan increased the debt by $1.7 trillion in 8 years... Obama increased the debt an average of $1 trillion EVERY year. Yet, you are trying to argue that Obama was better because he didn't "triple" the debt. It's just a stupid kindergarten-type argument that shows you simply don't comprehend mathematics.

Clinton never balanced the budget. The national debt increased every year. You've been lying about this since he left office and I've given you the official website to check the numbers and challenged you to show us the year Clinton balanced the budget but you can't because he didn't. Clinton did increase taxes and we gained $4 billion in tax revenue as a result. Then, in 1994, he lowered taxes and we gained $600 billion as a result. Now if you want to say the debt grew more under Reagan than Clinton, that's fine... I won't argue that, but Reagan had a Democrat Congress who refused to cut spending and Clinton had a Republican Congress who demanded spending cuts. The fact still remains, no president has balanced the national budget since Andrew Jackson.

1.7 trillion was a huge number in the 80's. The economy was much smaller then. I have shown you in many ways how bad Reagan was for the debt. You choose to live in fantasy land. Economists just don't support your theories on Trumps plan being good for the debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Mr. Trump’s tax cuts would be the deepest ever, reducing revenue $6.2 trillion in the first decade and mostly benefiting corporations and the highest-income Americans, the center said. Some middle-income families, however, would receive a tax increase.

Again, and I don't have anything better to do so I'll just keep repeating myself over and over.... Tax cuts do not produce less revenue, they create more. So when an "economist" tells you that tax cuts will reduce revenue, they are lying to you.

$1.7 trillion was a huge number in 1980 and it's a huge number today. The economy hasn't grown so much that $1.7 trillion isn't a huge number. But again, Reagan didn't have a line item veto so he couldn't do anything about Tip O'Neil's spending. He had to work with a Democrat Congress who refused to make spending cuts. He lobbied for a balanced budget amendment, in fact, he was one of the first on the national stage to do so.

The only place where I can find that Reagan ever said anything "in support" of a national debt was in 1984 when running for re-election. You same little smarmy pissants who don't REALLY give two shits about the debt were raking him over the coals because the national debt had just topped a trillion dollars. Just like "triple" you jumped on the sensationalism of the word "trillion" and tried to smear him with that. He explained that as long as the economy was growing, the national debt was sustainable because we would eventually grow our way out of it over time. But by-and-large, Reagan wanted to reduce the national debt through balancing the budget... he just never had a cooperative congress to do that. Clinton had a cooperative congress AND the Social Security Trust Fund and he STILL didn't balance the budget or reduce the national debt.

Now... You go right ahead and repeat your same tired old argument again like you have the past two pages of this thread, and I'll simply type another 4-5 paragraphs repeating my argument.... and we'll just see how long we can keep butting heads with no resolve. I've got all the time in the world and I've got the links to the data to back up every word I've said. So go right ahead and let's see if we can get this out of your system once and for all.

Your arguments are tiring because economists disagree with you. You keep posting how wrong you are and have no links to back up anything. Everyone who can be taken seriously knows the trump plan will greatly increase the debt. I have shown links to several experts on the subject who say Trump will greatly increase the debt. You can continue to live in fantasy land if you want, but I'll stick with the experts.

 

[Boss]

Your arguments are tiring because economists disagree with you. You keep posting how wrong you are and have no links to back up anything. Everyone who can be taken seriously knows the trump plan will greatly increase the debt. I have shown links to several experts on the subject who say Trump will greatly increase the debt. You can continue to live in fantasy land if you want, but I'll stick with the experts.

Again, all the experts don't say the same thing so all experts don't agree with me or you. Historical data from the Treasury Dept. website PROVES the national debt has increased every year and no president has balanced the budget since Andrew Jackson. The data also shows that tax cuts result in more revenue, not less. If an economist or "expert" claims a tax cut will create more debt, they are lying. Debt is created by spending and neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump has talked about spending cuts. I don't live in a fantasy land, I look up the historical data at the government website and educate myself. You're the one who keeps repeating nonsense that isn't true. That's living in a fantasy land.

This thread was intended to discuss Trump among the voters who are Republicans but don't support Trump. You've hijacked it to have a debate about Ronald Reagan, and that's what liberals love to do. They have no concept of thread topics, they just mosey in to any old thread and start spewing their liberal memes and lies. It's like a fun little game they play... to see if they can derail the thread topic and get people off in the weeds having a debate over something else. I usually won't play their game but when you decided to start lying about Reagan, I felt compelled to set you straight and I have. So for the last couple of pages, you've done what liberals always do when they lose an argument, you've flooded the board with a repeat of the same thing over and over again, refusing to accept defeat.

 

[charwin95]

Agree. That's correct but I prefer stability with steady hands. Not tearing this country apart with lots of false promises. Trump is far worse than Hillary in handling economic and foreign policy.

I'll be honest, I don't trust Hillary to do anything but lie and be corrupt as hell. I think she has demonstrated her total incompetence in foreign policy and would be an utter disaster again. I would literally take a third term of Obama over Hillary. You think she's trustworthy, that's fine... for the life of me, I don't see how. Everything she has touched is tainted with corruption, scandal, pay-for-play, unethical behavior, mysterious deaths... it never fucking ends. This shit has been going on for over 40 years with her.

Trump economic and foreign policy is nothing but irresponsible and garbage. Trump is saying everything he can to win the el cation in reality it's pure garbage. I can also prove to you who lied every day between these 2 douche bag. Trump is not and never be the answer to any these problems. Here is a good example. You can disagree however and whatever you want but I listen to experts. But never to a nazi clown. Just think about that 370 that is 370 economists totally disagree with your role model. Your future is in your hands.


370 Economists: ‘Do Not Vote For Donald Trump’

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4555032/economists-against-donald-trump?source=dam

‘He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options’
IDEAS DESK
NOV 2, 2016 11:09 AM EDT

Three hundred and seventy economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners, co-signed a letter that asserts, “Donald Trump is a dangerous, destructive choice for the country. He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality.”
The statement, which was first published by the Wall Street Journal, does not endorse a candidate. Instead it lists 15 points of concern about the Republican presidential nominee. Several criticize Trump for his assertions about supporting manufacturing workers, particularly those in Ohio and Michigan. Contrary to what he has said, the economists write that renegotiating NAFTA will not increase the number of manufacturing jobs: “manufacturing’s share of employment has been declining since the 1970s and is mostly related to automation, not trade.” (NAFTA came into effect in January 1994.) They also write that trade agreements have not cut national income and wealth, which has risen because, as the signatories write, trade is not “zero-sum.” (“Freedom to trade” was on a list of “what America needs” in a September statement of concern about “Hillary Clinton’s economic agenda” signed by 300 economists. An Oct. 31 statement by 19 Nobel laureates in economics decried Trump’s “reckless threats to start trade wars with several of our largest trading partners.”)

 

[Brain357]

Your arguments are tiring because economists disagree with you. You keep posting how wrong you are and have no links to back up anything. Everyone who can be taken seriously knows the trump plan will greatly increase the debt. I have shown links to several experts on the subject who say Trump will greatly increase the debt. You can continue to live in fantasy land if you want, but I'll stick with the experts.

Again, all the experts don't say the same thing so all experts don't agree with me or you. Historical data from the Treasury Dept. website PROVES the national debt has increased every year and no president has balanced the budget since Andrew Jackson. The data also shows that tax cuts result in more revenue, not less. If an economist or "expert" claims a tax cut will create more debt, they are lying. Debt is created by spending and neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump has talked about spending cuts. I don't live in a fantasy land, I look up the historical data at the government website and educate myself. You're the one who keeps repeating nonsense that isn't true. That's living in a fantasy land.

This thread was intended to discuss Trump among the voters who are Republicans but don't support Trump. You've hijacked it to have a debate about Ronald Reagan, and that's what liberals love to do. They have no concept of thread topics, they just mosey in to any old thread and start spewing their liberal memes and lies. It's like a fun little game they play... to see if they can derail the thread topic and get people off in the weeds having a debate over something else. I usually won't play their game but when you decided to start lying about Reagan, I felt compelled to set you straight and I have. So for the last couple of pages, you've done what liberals always do when they lose an argument, you've flooded the board with a repeat of the same thing over and over again, refusing to accept defeat.

Please share links by good economists that say Trump will not greatly increase the debt. ALL the sources I can find say he will greatly add to the debt.

 

[charwin95]

You mean he will put tariffs on china and put us into recession? That is a good idea to you? A new tax is going to help us? Tariffs don't work and never have.

It will force companies to manufacture in the US instead of using Chinese slave labor. Tariffs do work. China puts tariffs on US goods going to China in order to protect their own industries. The US already has some 12,000 specific tariffs.

Trump economic plan is rated F. Blasted by independent well know economists and GOPs. Just because it came from Trump doesn't mean its right. Trump economic idea is bad for America. If he is elected get ready for high prices on ALL commodities including health care. Be very careful what you ask for.
The idea of moving manufacturing jobs back to US is nothing but delusional. Labor in America is extremely very high compared to any country. That's the main reason people like me went overseas in the first place.


Trump’s love of tariffs may be the wrong move | New York Post

50 Ways Trump Is Wrong on Trade

Nothing could be more boring to write about. I can hear you snoring already. But if Donald Trump becomes president, you will hear that word a lot. You’ll especially hear it in connection with China.

Tariffs are the taxes placed on imported goods, usually when the other country has done something you don’t like.
Tariffs and taxes have caused wars in the past.
You know all about the Boston Tea Party, which led to the American Revolution. The Brits wanted to tax the colonists’ tea.

Trump, who will accept the Republican Party nomination for president Thursday, has said that he’d like to impose 35 percent to 45 percent tariffs on goods coming into the US from Mexico and China.
A group of reporters from The Post met with Trump a few weeks ago at his self-named tower in Manhattan, and I asked him specifically about the punishment he plans for China.

He didn’t back off the idea of a tariff. The Chinese, he said, want to do business with us and they will pay the tax. I pointed out that it could lead to a trade war — we tax them, they tax us — and then, just to top it off, the Chinese would start stealing more of our technology than they already have.
Trump seemed unfazed. And I hope he’s right to be calm about this.

What a surprise, the establishment says it won't work. They tell you "we must send jobs overseas" and you believe. Clearly the leftists only care about the bottom line for corporations, and care nothing about the employees and workers in the US.

Clearly you don't understand the economy or trade. Many believe tariffs were the cause of the great depression. That is how bad they are.

Except we and most other countries already use tariffs of some kind or another to protect their industries and workers. So why isn't the whole world in a depression? I hate buying cheap Chinese crap that breaks, I'd much rather pay more for something high quality and American made.

You don't understand tariffs or trade just like Trump..... It's been proven over and over that Trump doesn't have a clue about trade and tariffs.
You want pay higher prices just because of your fascination to Trump..... That's mighty of you speaking for the rest of America. We are not talking couple of bucks here. As an example lettuce is about $5/head (not sure bc I don't go to grocery)...... How much do you think it cost if Trump is the president?
Just imagine how much the cost of ALL goods if Trump is the president.
The sad part is ........... It doesn't matter what Trump is blurting lies or wrong .......... Trumpeters like you is so used to it believe him anyway. You are basing your future based from that.

 

[Boss]

charwin95 ...I don't support Trump's trade policies. There are several things I disagree with Trump on but I disagree with Hillary on everything. If I only voted for candidates who I agree with 100%, I wouldn't have voted for a president since Reagan.

I actually like some of Trump's proposals better than McCain or Romney's. Returning education to the states, lowering corporate tax rates, rebuilding the military, enforcing border security and aggressively attacking the illegal immigration problem are all areas I agree with Trump on.

The bottom line is, either Hillary or Trump will be elected on Nov. 8th. I find the prospects of Hillary as president to be... deplorable.

 

[Brain357]

charwin95 ...I don't support Trump's trade policies. There are several things I disagree with Trump on but I disagree with Hillary on everything. If I only voted for candidates who I agree with 100%, I wouldn't have voted for a president since Reagan.

I actually like some of Trump's proposals better than McCain or Romney's. Returning education to the states, lowering corporate tax rates, rebuilding the military, enforcing border security and aggressively attacking the illegal immigration problem are all areas I agree with Trump on.

The bottom line is, either Hillary or Trump will be elected on Nov. 8th. I find the prospects of Hillary as president to be... deplorable.

Why do you think the military needs rebuilding? We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. That will sure add to the debt.

Why do you think immigration is such a big problem? Certain industries sure like the cheap labor.

 

[charwin95]

Academic discussion as usual. As someone who buys steel products, American steel is of much higher quality, one. Two, as I have learned from the shrimp industry, when a foreign country subsidizes a product to sell below cost just to get American dollars, it is definitely not a fair system. Americans can build almost anything better if you take Obamacare, regulations, and unions out of the picture. More American steel means more middle class jobs. I am not for protectionism, I am for fair trade. I can compete with anyone on a level playing field. if another country has overcapacity in steel making that is their problem not ours.

Obamacare has nothing to do with trades and tariffs. Maybe you can compete with anyone physically but I don't think you can compete with low labor around the world.
Yes we can build anything ...... but at what price? If American steel cost $2,180 per kiloton vs $1,250 from China. Where do you go? With that $2,180/kiloton from US...... How are you going to sell that overseas?
Who is responsible for all of these? Look in the mirror ......... that is you and me.

 

[Boss]

Please share links by good economists that say Trump will not greatly increase the debt. ALL the sources I can find say he will greatly add to the debt.

Nope... I don't play the "cite" game. I know how that works. I don't have a problem linking you to official government websites to confirm the data on tax revenues and national debt. Either side, right or left, can find links to "experts" who support their viewpoint and then it just becomes a pissing contest over the sources. So what is the point of me posting links that you are going to tear down the credibility of as soon as I do? You want an economist who agrees with Trump's policies? Larry Kudlow. Peter Morici. Paul Krugman.

I will also point out that Ronald Reagan faced as similar problem. Economists of the day said his policies would be an economic catastrophe. Reagan proved economists aren't always right.

 

[my2¢]

For me a vote for Hillary or Trump would be tossing away my conscience.

 

[Boss]

Why do you think the military needs rebuilding? We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. That will sure add to the debt.

Why do you think immigration is such a big problem? Certain industries sure like the cheap labor.

Because Obama has decimated our military.

I don't think immigration is a problem. I think illegal immigration is a problem.

 

[charwin95]

If you want to triple the debt he is your guy.

I'll be tickled to death with an 8 year presidency that only increases the debt by $1.7 trillion. Especially when the tax cuts will increase tax revenues by that much or more. That will be splendid indeed!

You mean if he triples the debt like Reagan did we will be at 60 trillion. You need to speak in todays numbers. The tax cuts and tariffs will put us in recession. You need to listen to people who understand the economy. Economists say he will be a disaster.

And if the loony-tune liberals control Congress like they did under Reagan, that might be possible.

Speaking in today's numbers, yesterday's numbers or tomorrow's numbers, lowering top marginal tax rates while expanding the base will produce more tax revenues. You and your economists need to study history. And no... not ALL economists say anything. I don't agree with Trump on tariffs but again, it depends on the specifics as to whether they are good or bad for the American economy.

Some people predict we'll have another recession regardless of who is elected and regardless of their policies because recessions are cyclical and we're due for one again. Now you'll blame Trump if he's president and people on the right will blame Hillary if she's president because that's just how the game of politics gets played. Recessions happen for a multitude of reasons and if politicians could control them, we'd never have them.

It's ironic that you are appealing to popularity by telling me of all these people who agree with you because Trump is a populist. Hillary isn't going to be serving as president anyway, she's going to be doing time... Tim Kaine will be your president if she wins the election. That's a nutbag who shouldn't be anywhere near the Oval Office.

Based from EXPERTS not from Trump or followers..... this country will be screwed up both foreign and domestic.
At least with Hillary we might have stability and steady hands. You only voting from Trump because of your fascination. That's your future.

 

[Brain357]

Please share links by good economists that say Trump will not greatly increase the debt. ALL the sources I can find say he will greatly add to the debt.

Nope... I don't play the "cite" game. I know how that works. I don't have a problem linking you to official government websites to confirm the data on tax revenues and national debt. Either side, right or left, can find links to "experts" who support their viewpoint and then it just becomes a pissing contest over the sources. So what is the point of me posting links that you are going to tear down the credibility of as soon as I do? You want an economist who agrees with Trump's policies? Larry Kudlow. Peter Morici. Paul Krugman.

I will also point out that Ronald Reagan faced as similar problem. Economists of the day said his policies would be an economic catastrophe. Reagan proved economists aren't always right.

So nobody who can be taken seriously supports trumps policies. I didn't think so. Reagan tripled the debt. You live in fantasy land.

 

[charwin95]

Why do you think the military needs rebuilding? We spend more than the next 10 countries combined. That will sure add to the debt.

Why do you think immigration is such a big problem? Certain industries sure like the cheap labor.

Because Obama has decimated our military.
.

That is how Trump run this election. We are the weakest and same as third world countries both militarily and civilian life. Wrong.
We are still the most powerful country in this planet. New state of the art aircraft carrier and state of the art destroyers.