Nah, they're pretty straight-up here. McCain and Romney both won the county handily. Lotta people are Democrats but they are not Liberals.
Trump - Make America Great Again!
- Thread starter IndySteel
- Start date
- Status
Nah, they're pretty straight-up here. McCain and Romney both won the county handily. Lotta people are Democrats but they are not Liberals.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
What I'd dearly love to read from one of you, a real outline on how Trump plans to make America Great again. I see a lot of lower middle class white people at his rallies. So exactly what is in it for them. And I don't want to hear about what the other side is about. I want to hear what Trump is going to do (that can actually be done, not fantasy talk) for these people that attend his rallies. I understand they are frustrated, but what is he going to do for them.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Read his policy statements - lazy ***!
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Here's one, there are many
ECONOMIC VISION: WINNING THE GLOBAL COMPETITION
Last week’s GDP report showed that the economy grew a mere 1.2% in the second quarter and 1.2% over the last year. It’s the weakest recovery since the Great Depression – the predictable consequence of massive taxation, regulation, one-side trade deals and onerous energy restrictions.
This slow-growth low-jobs future doesn’t have to be. While Hillary Clinton promises more of the same failed economy agenda that have pushed another 14 million out of the workforce in the last 7 years – and that has placed forty percent of Detroit in poverty – Donald Trump is outlining a new economic vision based on a simple premise: all economic policy must be geared towards making it easier to hire, invest, build, grow and produce in America – creating a level playing field for our workers and businesses in global competition, and creating jobs here, not overseas.
High taxes and excessive regulation push jobs overseas, reduce wages, and create a smaller economy for everyone. Obama-Clinton have created a built-in advantage for our foreign competitors.
Reducing the burdens on the American economy, and creating fair trade deals, will lead to an explosion of new jobs, wealth and opportunity. That’s what America First economics is all about – making America the best place in the world to do business, and the best place in the world to get a job, raise and rising standard of living.
Here is how we can accomplish that goal, and win the global competition for America:
1. Tax reform—
Simplify taxes for everyone and streamline deductions. Biggest tax reform since Reagan.
Lower taxes for everyone, making raising a family more affordable for working families.
Reduce dramatically the income tax.
We will simplify the income tax from 7 brackets to 3 brackets.
Exclude childcare expenses from taxation.
Limit taxation of business income to 15% for every business.
Make our corporate tax globally competitive and the United States the most attractive place to invest in the world.
End the death tax.
For every one percentage point of slower growth in a given year, that’s one million fewer jobs for American workers. Reducing taxes on our workers and businesses, means that our workers can sell their products more cheaply here and around the world – meaning more factories, more hiring, and higher wages. It’s time to stop punishing people for doing business in America.
President Obama has already increased taxes by $1.7 trillion during his administration. Hillary Clinton would raise taxes by an additional $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. According to the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Hillary Clinton’s tax plan: “Marginal tax rates would increase, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex.” In addition, Hillary would tax some small businesses by as much as nearly fifty percent; the Trump plan would limit taxes on all businesses to 15 percent of business income.
The child care exclusion will be an above-the-line deduction. Capped at the amount of average care costs in state of residence for age of child. Low-income taxpayers able to take deduction against payroll tax. The plan is structured to benefit working and middle class families, and more detail will be rolled out soon after the plans other elements.
2. Regulatory reform—
A temporary pause on new regulations and a review of previous regulations to see which need to be scrapped.
Require each federal agency to prepare a list of all of the regulations they impose on American business, and rank them from most critical to health and safety to least critical. Least critical regulations will receive priority consideration for repeal.
Remove bureaucrats who only know how to kill jobs; replace them with experts who know how to create jobs.
Targeted review for regulations that inhibit hiring. These include:
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which forces investment in renewable energy at the expense of coal and natural gas, raising electricity rates;
The EPA’s Waters of the United States rule, which gives the EPA the ability to regulate the smallest streams on private land, limiting land use; and
The Department of Interior’s moratorium on coal mining permits, which put tens of thousands of coal miners out of work.
Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as 2 trillion dollars a year, and we will end it.
Regulations may have cost us 600,000 small businesses since the start of the recent recession—largely because of new regulations on financing—and some 6 million fewer jobs. The Heritage Foundation has found that the Obama administration has imposed 229 major regulations (those with a cost of $100 million or more) at a cost of $108 billion annually.
3. Trade reform—
Appoint trade negotiators whose goal will be to win for America: narrowing our trade deficit, increasing domestic production, and getting a fair deal for our workers.
Renegotiate NAFTA.
Withdraw from the TPP.
Bring trade relief cases to the world trade organization.
Label China a currency manipulator.
Apply tariffs and duties to countries that cheat.
Direct the Commerce Department to use all legal tools to respond to trade violations.
Our trade deficit in goods is almost $800 billion on an annual basis. The trade deficit subtracts from growth and costs the US jobs. This has hurt working Americans because good-paying manufacturing jobs are hard to find. Less than half of the population 25 and older without a high school diploma is in the workforce; the unemployment rate of those who are in the almost 30 percent higher than the overall unemployment rate. This leads to poverty and an increase in demands on the nation’s social service network. Better trade policies can reverse this outcome dramatically.
Hillary Clinton has supported every major trade deal responsible for job losses in the United States, and will enact the TPP if given the chance.
TPP will hammer the car industry because it does not resolve, among other things, the substantial non-tariff barriers to U.S. cars being sold in Japan and other countries — including currency manipulation, excess supply and closed dealerships. According to the Peterson Institute, TPP would increase the automobile trading deficit by $23 billion by 2025.
4. Energy reform—
Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
Save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
Ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
Make land in the Outer Continental Shelf available to produce oil and natural gas.
Cancel the Paris Climate Agreement (limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius) and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
Lift restrictions on American energy to increase:
Economic output by $700 billion annually over the next 30 years,
Wages by $30 billion annually over the next 7 years,
GDP by more than $20 trillion over the next four decades, and
Tax revenues by an additional $6 trillion over 40 years.
Energy costs the average American households $5,000 per year. As a percentage of income, the cost is greater for lower-income families. An America First Energy Plan will bring down residential and transportation energy costs, leaving more money in for American families as they pay less each month on power bills and gasoline for cars. This will also make electricity more affordable for U.S. manufacturers, which will help our companies create jobs and compete on the world stage.
President Obama sought to raise the price of energy for America’s families and businesses. He’s put much of Alaska’s reserves off limits, decreased production on federal lands by 10 percent, put 87 percent of Outer Continental Shelf reserves out of service, and shut down Atlantic lease sales costing nearly 300,00 jobs. Hillary Clinton has pledged to protect and expand these job-killing policies.
Donald Trump is committed to clean air and water, without increasing the cost of electricity. Hillary Clinton will continue President Obama’s goals of reducing methane emissions by 40-45 percent through standards for both new and existing sources, which will drastically increase the cost of natural gas; Donald Trump is committed to an “all of the above” energy plan that would encourage, not discourage, the use of natural gas and other American energy resources that will both reduce emissions but also reduce the price of energy and increase our economic output.
5. Other reforms, to be rolled out in the near future —
Obamacare repeal and replacement—Obamacare will cost the economy 2 million full time jobs over the next decade. Hillary Clinton would expand Obamacare and create fully government-run socialized medicine.
Infrastructure—28 percent of our roads are in substandard condition and 24 percent of bridges are structurally deficient or worse. Trump’s plan will provide the growth to boost our infrastructure, Hillary Clinton’s will not.
Childcare— Childcare is now the single greatest expense for most American families — even exceeding the cost of housing in much of the country. Trump will allow families to exclude childcare costs from income, benefitting every family. Hillary will not.
Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race.
Contrast with Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton accepts the CBO and Fed projections that the U.S. will grow only 2 percent per year. She doesn’t believe in a better future for America – only Venezuela-style redistribution of a stagnant economy.
Hillary Clinton will raise taxes by $1.3 trillion, leading to 300,000 lost jobs and lower wages.
Hillary Clinton will increase spending by a minimum of $3.5 trillion.
Hillary Clinton wants to increase regulations.
Hillary Clinton is a globalist, supporting almost every major job-killing trade deal.
Hillary Clinton wants to shut down American energy production, a tax on the poor.
Summary:
Trump is the candidate of the future. Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the past.
Now go back and read the rest
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/03/17/natural-gas-to-overtake-coal-in-2016.html
You can't have it both ways on coal and natural gas. Low cost natural gas is what is causing the demise of coal.
On the horizon (next 5 years) is coming the next advance in nuclear energy (small modular reactors). Natural gas
put the stake to coals heart, new technologies will drive the stake in. Coal is the past, if Trump supports coal, he is the
candidate of the past.
You can't have it both ways on coal and natural gas. Low cost natural gas is what is causing the demise of coal.
On the horizon (next 5 years) is coming the next advance in nuclear energy (small modular reactors). Natural gas
put the stake to coals heart, new technologies will drive the stake in. Coal is the past, if Trump supports coal, he is the
candidate of the past.
To attend Supe's birthday party I assume?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Competitive pressure from the shale boom and cheaper natural gas would have eaten into the coal market, but Obama's war on coal is what is causing the demise of coal.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
Holy ****, that sounds almost like the free market!! Well, it would if you were completely correct. Add CD's comments and it is complete. Not quite free market due to the excessive pressures from The Big O and his ilk on the coal industry.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
Pretty easy to find lots of his policy outlines. The issue I have is that I don't believe he really thinks this way and he is more like Hillary than he is his policies. All historical evidence points this direction.
Think the Wall is fantasy? How many illegal Mexicans do you see in China after they built a Wall. So, THERE!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
Problem is, you have it backwards. What is it with you and your love for millionaires and billionaires?
From Robert Reich:
Back to basics: Election Day is in 76 days. Amid the outrage and hype, endless character analyses, and daily accusations, it’s easy to forget the fundamental difference is their economic proposals:
Donald Trump wants to lower the top tax rate for individuals to 33 percent from the current 39.6 percent, slash the corporate rate to 15 percent from its current 35 percent, and eliminate the estate tax (now paid by only the wealthiest Americans). Trump’s plan would cost around $5 trillion over ten years, and almost all this would go to the top 1 percent. Yet Trump hasn’t said how he’d pay for it. The only way to raise this kind of money without reducing defense spending would be to cut Medicare and Social Security (eliminating all programs for the poor wouldn’t get close).
Hillary Clinton would impose a 30 percent minimum tax on any income over $1 million, add a 4 percent surcharge on incomes over $5 million, limit deductions for upper-income taxpayers, and slightly increase estate taxes. She’d use this added revenue to pay for a $275 billion, five-year infrastructure plan, tax breaks to help with child care and college tuition, and a bigger earned-income tax credit for the working poor.
Clinton’s plan is progressive. Trump’s is regressive. Period.
The leader of Brexit is going to speak at tonight's Trump rally. Should be good.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/24/farage-brexit-story-trump-rally/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/24/farage-brexit-story-trump-rally/
A BIGGER unearned-income tax credit for the working poor? In my city the "working" poor drive luxury cars due to this unearned tax credit. The "dreamer" down the street just bought a nearly new Infinity. That's some bullshit right there.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,612
- Reaction score
- 30,002
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
No doubt, fracking and the resulting influx of natural gas have greatly benefitted our nation and has undercut coal's competitive position. However, the undeniable facts are these: regulations on coal power increase its price significantly. Further, the Dems cannot wait to regulate and limit fracking, so its competitive advantage is at risk.
A competitive national energy program benefits all concerned, most notably, our citizens. Supporting both coal and fracking/natural gas is not only consistent, it is clearly in the national interest.
So is building a pipeline. The caribou can step aside a few feet.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,612
- Reaction score
- 30,002
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Tibs:
I agree that the Trump tax reduction plan has budgeting issues. No doubt. Back when the top tax rate was 70%, Laffer was correct that a tax reduction would result in increased tax revenues, as was proven beyond dispute by the 1982 tax reductions. However, with the top rate now 40%, I don't believe that the tax reduction would yield enough increased economic activity to offset the loss of revenue based on rate.
However, Robert Reich is treating us like idiots in pretending that a tax reduction or tax increase has no resulting effect on taxable income. Specifically, when the government lowers tax rates, the "lost" tax revenue is never as large as the static projections suggest because taxpayers have much less incentive to claim income as a non-taxable event, and report more taxable income. Further, more money in the public's hands leads to greater economic activity and greater tax revenues as a result.
Finally, please, for the love of God, for the love of all that is holy, stop pretending that government programs actually cost what the proponent claims it will cost. My rule is generally, "multiply the projected cost by 3." I usually wind up underprojecting the actual cost of government programs, even so.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
Right.
We can try to tax ourselves to prosperity and drive the rest of our manufacturing out of the country,
But Hildebeast will come up with a job training program to make people feel better. And you're a sexist for hating on the FWP.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Nigel Farage Joins Donald Trump To Assail Hillary Clinton!
JACKSON, Miss. - Nigel Farage, a key figure in the successful campaign to get Britain out of the European Union, lent his support to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday, saying Trump represented the same type of anti-establishment movement that he masterminded in his own country.
Farage appeared with Trump before a cheering crowd of thousands at a rally in Jackson, Mississippi. Farage partly based his Brexit drive on opposition to mass immigration to Britain that he said was leading to rapid change in his country.
His appearance came as Trump sought to moderate his own hardline stance against illegal immigration. In remarks broadcast on Wednesday, Trump backed further away from his vow to deport millions of illegal immigrants, saying he would be willing to work with those who have abided by U.S. laws while living in the country.
“I cannot possibly tell you how you should vote in this election. But you know I get it, I get it. I’m hearing you. But I will say this, if I was an American citizen I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if you paid me,” Farage said. “In fact, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton if she paid me”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nigel-farage-trump-clinton_us_57be523ce4b04193420d8286
-----------------
hahahaha
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
What's missing from the tax discussion is a re-examination of the premise. It's our government, we are not it's citizens. It's our budget, and it's our money. In our personal lives, when we start seeing trouble making a mortgage payment, we cut back our spending. Taxes are the same thing. It is not some imaginary pool of income that politicians should feel like they can draw from at whatever level they think they need. It's my ******* paycheck, and it doesn't change depending on how much these ******* think they want to spend. Also, arbitrary taxation like capital gains taxes and estate taxes are complete bullshit. All that money has already been taxed by the government many times. Cut the government to match a reasonable tax contribution. Our representatives have **** the bed in this matter. The conversations should always be about how to shrink the government, not how to maximize tax receipts.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
That was going to be my next point. We have over $2.8T paid in to the government as taxes. But $3.2T in spending. Perhaps we should look at the 18 things the Constitution says the Federal Government is supposed to do and limit it to that again.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
That's rich. The most hated - and ridiculed - politician in Europe throws his support behind the dumpster fire that is Donald Trump's campaign. How perfectly fitting.
With global superstars like Putin, Farange, Kim Jong-Un and the mini-Mussolini, Viktor Orban all backing Trump, it should be perfectly clear to everyone who NOT to vote for in November.
Last edited:
I've heard this argument many times from my republican friends, family, and others, and none of them seem to grasp the double standard they're arguing. I've heard almost all of these people say that they think it's wrong that some folks are exempt from paying any federal income tax just because they make under a specific amount. They claim it shouldn't matter... that everyone should have some skin in the game and that a flat tax of 10-15% should be implemented. I agree that this would be the fairest way of doing it. That being said, I still think a progressive tax rate is the best way for a country to tax it's people. Under a flat tax of let's say 10%, a person making $400K will pay $40 grand in federal tax, where as the person that makes $40K would pay $4 grand... obviously substantially less. Now I get that on paper this looks like the best way of doing it.... everybody paying the same percentage. This is where the liberal part of my brain starts weighing in. The problem here is that the guy paying what on paper is far less than the other person, the guy paying less is in reality going to feel the bite much more painfully than the guy that still has $360,000 left with which to support himself and his family. This isn't to say that I think the person that does better financially in his or her life deserves to be "punished" or whatever word you choose to describe the discrepancy. I just feel that taxes are a burden for everyone, and the simple truth is that people that make substantially more than others can pay more without it affecting their everyday lives as much as it does a person lower on the ladder.
The double standard I refered to before is simply this... Why is it unfair that some folks pay little or no tax even though they make very little, yet many on the conservative side think it is wrong to pay tax on capital gains or inheritance? Now, I'll be the first to say that the percentages are way too high on the estate taxes, but as far as I'm concerned, income is income. If the feds can take 15 cents of every dollar I earn from my paycheck, why shouldn't everyone else's income be taxed the same?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
There is no double standard anywhere in there. The government has normalized the idea of taxing money whenever it moves around to such an extent that people like you confuse it with income tax. With the exception of retirement accounts, capital gains money has already been subject to an income tax. The person buying a stock is buying it with money that has already been taxed, and the person selling it already paid tax on the money to own it. Estate tax is bullshit for the same reason. All of the assets were purchased with money that was already taxed.
- Status
