Cal88 said:
Yogi Bear said:
GBear4Life said:
To assert that you simply can't understand the rationale of tens of millions of people for voting for one candidate over the other, and vice versa, is an indictment of your depth of thinking and ability to understand human nature and the totality of the political landscape. It' not an indictment, or "embarrassment" , for anybody else.
I do understand it. They're either:
a) Stupid and voting against their own interests. Middle-class and poor whites who've been screwed by the new economy and thought Trump was going to bring back manufacturing jobs.
b) Racists
c) Selfish people like wifeisafurd who voted their personal financial interest over the good of the country.
So no. He never gets to say he doesn't like Trump. He never gets to forget that he voted for Trump. And if you voted for Trump, that stain is on you as well.
a) Would Hillary have fared any better than Trump in advancing the interests of middle class and poor whites? Trump at least seems to have a semblance of a national industrial policy, and he's repealed the TPP, NAFTA, and is redrawing trade agreements with China and the EU.
b) Somehow those racists voted en masse for Obama, twice. As well, open borders has contributed to the decrease in purchasing power and economic stagnation of the middle/lower class, there is a strong economic case against unfettered immigration for those who are outside the coastal new economy.
Trump is less of a neoliberal than Clinton, the race to the bottom ushered in the 90s with unfettered globalization has generated great wealth at the top and hurt the middle/working classes.
c) Usually personal financial interest goes hand in hand with the good of the country, except perhaps for the the banking elite, which has often greatly benefited at the expense of the middle class (outsourcing, restructurings, LBOs etc).
I think Trump has underperformed in his first 2 1/2 years, particularly on foreign policy, where he actually run to the left of Hillary as a non-interventionist. Bolton, Abrams and Pompeo are about as bad as it gets. Still, overall, he's better than Clinton, and probably better than Buttigieg, who I believe will be the nominee. I also think PB will be defeated, he's not the right candidate for the Dems.
thanks, '71 still is whining over the election. Many people voted for what they thought was the lesser of two evils. BTW, in a capitalist society, we act and vote in our financial interests. '71 still hasn't figured that one out yet.
Clinton would raise taxes on the highest earners and impose another new minimum tax to pay for a pandering of pet programs to key constituencies. She promised to boost growth by giving tax cuts to her definition of the middle class (not you folks on this board) and small businesses, though the details of her plan suggested to the accounting world small businesses actually would pay more in tax (sorta like being a California resident under the Trump tax cut). She pledged to reduce income inequality by raising the minimum wage, though a number far below what almost all Democrats wanted. She would have raised short-term capital gains taxes for those earning $400,000 a year. She would add to the Obama administration's wave of new regulations. And she also committed to a balanced budget (the numbers didn't add, but then again neither did her opponents), despite wanting to make huge dollar investment In infrastructure.
At the time, the U.S. government can borrow money for 10 years at about 1.5 percent and for 30 years at about 2.25 percent. That's incredibly inexpensive. If this money borrowed is used to strengthen growth in U.S. productivity then it would be money well spent IMO. Looking at the issue from another view, "taxing the wealthy to subsidize the less wealthy" might promote some people's ideas of 'fairness,' but would not necessarily do anything for economic growth or job creation. The capital gains rate elimination would do a great deal to move liquid capital outside the country. But most capital gains are long-term, thus preserving the tax benefit for Hilary's Wall Street benefactors. Cutting taxes would make more sense to me if the tax cuts were targeted on factors designed to promote growth, such as by expanding credits for spending on new equipment; and research and development; and building up the skills in the labor force, or investments in small business growth (approx. 70% of new job growth traditionally comes from small business). However, she just thought the middle class would increase spending (as opposed to save) which is a nice elitist attitude. Most successful small business owners would have been taken in by the new alternative minimum tax and thus has less money to invest. Clinton wanted to make her tax policy revenue neutral, which meant a lot of unspecified cuts, but that would require Congress to pass legislation and whether there would be sufficient Congressional support in even her party to pass such legislation is doubtful.
Hilary wanted this $10 billion give away to manufacturing. She said it was a jobs issue. She would also charge a exit tax for manufacturer leaving the US (something that made sense but might not be legal if forging entities were used). It's not really about more jobs. The United States is nearly at what economists view as "full employment" now, so job creation isn't the priority. What people really want is more jobs that pay better. Employment in manufacturing has been falling for decades because of increasing productivity and outsourcing. Manufactured goods have been less expensive and people have chosen to spend a larger share of their incomes on services rather than on manufactured products. So why should the US invest in more manufacturing other than Clinton wanted to pander to this group? Those of us involved in capital markets believe a focus more on overall economic growth and let the location of the jobs within different sectors evolve on their own works the best, without declaring that one sector is more important than another. But that is not how it works in identify politics. A tax cut for all that Trump promised (but didn't give for all) and no governmental mandated winners or losers is more attractive. As for the exit tax that probably would not be held legal as violating numerous tax treaties, it would be better to make the tax system less complicated and lower the tax rates so people and companies have less incentive to avoid taxes by creating lots of subsidiaries and engaging in transactions that are just designed to legally avoid taxes.
But a better perspective is the majority of swing voters though Trump's policies would do a better job on the economy. And we all gladly wear that stain, as economic growth continues and wage growth. There are a lot of problems with Trump, more that I realized (turnover and International affairs are a complete disaster). But Hilary would have been a disaster as well. There would be hearing after hearing on every Hilary scandal, the news media still continues to focus on every Trump tweet about crooked Hilary. With Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress, Clinton never enacting her legislative agenda, the government shuts down repeatedly, the economy limps along, Clinton remains unpopular. There are no Obamacare fixes (which means we still are where we are), Republicans continue to push talk about voter and immigrant fraud on Hilary's narrow elector college victory, every time an immigrant does something bad, the headlines persist. The media which never warmed to Hilary digs more and more into her past. The 5th circuit knocks down every Clinton issued Presidential order, and we all get to see how Justice Kennedy votes on the 8 seeded court. Congress moves to impeach Clinton. And '71 bears the stain of voting for her.
'71 bears the stain of continuing to support an inferior candidate, and if he and his true believers keep that up an bring another inferior candidate to the table, they can enjoy another 4 year's of Trump. My view is Harris for President ('71 might try reading her tax and medicare ideas)!
Hilary Clinton spends a significant portion of her post-election book explanins why Benie Sanders' economics will never work. I'm sure it will be widely quoted when Bernie or some other socialist wins the nomination.