Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will propose imposing a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations, reviving the Obama-stalled Keystone oil pipeline project, slashing business tax rates and making childcare expenses fully tax-deductible, in a landmark economic speech Monday. The Daily Mail
Donald Trump’s campaign to right the ship, unite the Republican Party, and establish an economic platform to challenge Hillary Clinton is being cemented as we speak. It is long past time for Trump to focus on his strengths: the economy being one of them. Despite his ridiculous threats of higher tariffs on foreign goods (which is most likely a bluff anyway), Donald Trump does have a program of outstanding proposals for the US Economy.
Trump’s proposals include measures to dramatically reduce income tax rates and simplify taxes for all Americans. He would trim the number of personal tax brackets from seven to just three.
He would also ‘remove bureaucrats who only know how to kill jobs; replace them with experts who know how to create jobs,’ according to an outline of the speech shared with a few reporters. The Daily Mail
What Republican can’t get behind this?
While I’ve never quite understood the virtue of our tax code, Trump’s proposals are viable under our current Republican Leadership in the House and Senate. Today’s speech does not appear to be the Red, White, and Blue Morning in America fantasy pitch I was expecting. Trump is taking this seriously and not a moment too soon.
A tax rate of 15 per cent would be the norm for businesses in a Trump administration, and hedge-fund managers would no longer get the benefit of special treatment for ‘carried-interest.’
While essentially raising taxes on hedge-fund managers isn’t a particularly good idea, it will play well with middle America. Both white and blue collar men will get behind Trump’s tax plan, while women will support his proposal to make childcare tax deductible.
Donald Trump is expected to continue calling for a rewriting of NAFTA, an unpopular free trade agreement to which Hillary Clinton is inescapably tied. Defending NAFTA will not help Hillary with the Bernie Sanders’ crowd. Our economy, much like during the Great Depression, is recovering too slowly for most Americans. The more the government tries to fix the economy, the more expensive the economy becomes.
Voters want to see our plants reopening and manufacturing grow. Trump’s opposition to NAFTA will help him win Ohio and Pennsylvania.
If the Daily Mail is correct in reporting that Donald Trump intends to address rolling back federal regulations, which he’ll blame for suffocating the economy, then he’s finally giving me something to get excited about. Over regulation is one of the most expensive and disastrous problems facing businesses in the United States.
Any serious proposal to scale back the overreach of the federal bureaucracy is a huge step in the right direction, as each regulation requires expensive enforcement and compliance that would otherwise be circulating in the free market.
Simply taking a scalpel to federal regulations could be the spark that reignites this stagnant economy of ours. President Reagan proved that drastic measures aren’t necessary to achieve phenomenal results. A small tax cut, simplification of the tax code, and a marginal reduction in regulation aren’t controversial policy proposals and I hope to see Speaker Ryan get behind many of Trump’s proposals.
Trump’s Detroit speech is a good sign that The Donald is focused and is listening to his advisers.
They’re really wipping him into line behind the scenes! He kept his temper, and we are now seeing the real meat of his policies.
I encourage everyone to read his ACTUAL press releases just as much as the viral articles that paraphrase them. They’re not long-winded, and he literally outlines his policy drafts via number so it’s easy to follow his points.
I’ve officially come to the point where I’m not only unashamed that he has my vote, I’m officially proud- despite his big mouth sometimes. His economic policy has been mine almost word for word three years strong now, and has gotten me nothing but ridicule when I approach the discussion of protecting competitive industry within the borders and re-introducing tariffs to combat foul trade play. #Trump2016
Meanwhile fifty torpedoes slammed into the side of Trump’s cruiser today.
If you can’t out think them, kill them. The mantra of a leftist.
And he shot the torpedoes, including his lawsuit against Timothy O’Brien
His speech, constantly interrupted by SJW thuggery, was outstanding. His constant reference to numbers, aka, facts was well organized and presented. Further, his basic ideas for tax reduction, regulatory reform, and trade fairness are what is needed. He has put Hillary in a box and her only answer is more Obama failure.
too bad all he said was high level goals that everyone in the world has and never once included a detail about what he would do specifically. Everyone one if for jobs and better trade – he said nothing new and nothing different that everyone one else
So a business tax cut to 15% isn’t a detail. So freezing regulations isn’t a detail. So reassessing all our trade deals isn’t a detail. So eliminating the death tax isn’t a detail. So making day care 100% tax deductible isn’t a detail. So opening up coal mines isn’t a detail. Oh, well, I will await Hillary’s details as they should be a beaut. Oh, wait a minute, she will do what Obama did – no more middle class.
Here is the speech. I am hard pressed to find any real policy implimentation ideas. Just stump speech stuff. He’s good at quoting numbers (not so sure how accurate they are) but no where do I see an acumen for equations.
Further his website has no details on the plan just the speech. His site seems to be more of a news aggregator site on favorable reports.
I could have sworn this post was about Trump’s economic speech.
Unless his economics are a conspiracy theory like the crap being put out on Benghazi, then we can certainly move to discussing Trump’s facination with tall tales.
A quick internet search shows this image as being all over the place, especially amongst right wing wack job conspiracy websites. Lots of shirts available with it also. You must know it is fake, right? It was revealed as fake months ago when it originally surfaced with some regularity.
The offense picture was taken in 2004, a full 8 years before the tragic death of Ambassador Stevens. Nice way to honor an American patriot! Next time think twice before chuckling about how clever you are.
Here is Stevens. He died of smoke inhalation. We don’t need to embellish the horrors of that day – they were bad enough. But thanks to Hillary and Obama, this guy died and he was one of ours.
Nice. And that is helpful for your view?!? I am done.
This was a political speech, it wasn’t a policy speech. He spoke more about the Clintons and Obama than anything about his policy recommendations. You would think he would draw from the Republican platform that was worked up during his stellar convention. Nope. You would think he would tout his “highly regarded” economic team (all of which are wealthy billionaries who have donated to his campaign). Nope. Maybe he was constantly distracted by the cadence of protesters in the audience. I am not sure but he certainly didn’t come off as knowning his subject. Sound bites do not fix an economy. It was really just a few regurgitated thoughts to feed the red meat eaters. He’s going to get ripped for this speech once it settles in.
If you think he had nothing to say, I suggest a Hillary speech. It is all about justifying lies by telling more lies.
If your only retort is to suggest a Hillary speech, you obviously aren’t working with much. That is Trump’s fault, he’s a very shallow thinker.
You seem to think in absolutes. Politics is relative good and evil. And, by the way, you don’t build a massive private sector construction business by being a shallow thinker. He is obviously very comfortable with numbers and their
What is name of the massive private sector construction business and what source describes it?
A decent article reviewing the Trump brand https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/
notes Trump regards himself as interested in acquisition but not management ( as he put it, the getting, not the having)
The Washington Post, as is the case with most of the major newspapers, is utterly unreliable when it comes to Trump. Sorry, hit pieces aren’t decent articles, and if the WAPO intended to be unbiased they would have a similar supposedly analytical piece on Hillary.
The absence of bias in media is nonexistent. If you require total objectivity to extract information from journalistic pieces, you don’t do any reading at all. The Washington Post and the New York Times lean to the left the Wall Street Journal leans to the right. Not hard to take that into account.
There is a difference between leaning to the left and deliberately advocating for leftist biases. When an organization has to make up or distort facts then it ceases to lean and is no longer worthy of trust.
Good recent example is “Trump throws baby out of Rally”. The mother utterly refuted the story but no newspaper corrected their story. That is leftist bias on display and it utterly discredits the news media.
The Khan story is another example. The media has covered for Khan and his associations with the Saudi government and the Clinton Foundation. Any decent investigator would quickly realize that Khan’s attempt to hide his business website is suspicious.
Follow the story is journalism 101. Hide and distort the story isn’t journalism it is news biasing.
So how exactly did you learn all these facts about the Khan family but didn’t appear in the media?
Actually, i started with the alt media. For example, Conservative Treehouse or American Thinker first exposed the Khan website removal. Since I am a forensic investigator, I followed the leads – and there is actually a lot of information in the Alt media that has been assembled from various business records and news reports from prior NYC media stories. As far as I can tell, the reports are truthful because they show screen shots of the records and reference non controversial business stories.
Look what the Washington Post didn’t print https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/06/trumps-right-he-didnt-kick-a-baby-out-of-a-campaign-rally/
If that is your idea of an unbiased retraction, then you and I differ rather widely. Half the story references media hit pieces and even the headline leaves one wondering who Trump threw out of the rally. How about this headline “Media caught lying about Trump. Mom took crying baby out of rally and then came back later with it”.
You said the media refused to address it. I posted a link to an article in which they did. Now you’re criticising narrative style. Now you’re going to announce yourself as a forensic literary critic?
You miss quote me. The WAPO did not correct their story. A correction does not appear as a fact check it appears as a correction.
So now youre limiting truth telling to the crrections column?
Here’s a narrative you will no doubt discount, about all the political stories you claim arent told. Each of which you will in turn ignore. Because that’s what forensic investigators do, right?
A correction is an admission of error by the newspaper itself. It is in the form of an apology for misstating or improperly reporting the news. It is nice to have a fact check, but that is not an admission of error by the newspaper.
“Follow the story is journalism 101. Hide and distort the story isn’t journalism it is news biasing.”
Looks like the Post was following the story to me, but you won’t see that if you restrict your reading to tin hat websites.
how can you say that they did not print it if your source is them?
Apologies, it was sarcasm on my part. I was responding to a comment whose author claimed the “main stream media” willingly hid the truth behind Trump asking the baby’s mother to leave.
My point, there and subsequently, is that journalists are covering the events, and papers are publishing the journalists.
Oh yeah, about that massive company of his that does construction, what’s the name of it?
Actually I have become very comfortable with my assessment of Trump as being a very shallow thinker. He certainly doesn’t dig deep into issues. Doesn’t seem to have the interest or patience. I get the impression he would much rather pay someone to do his thinking. Exhibit one is this vaunted economic speech. (I am going to guess he bought the economy package on this set of words) Now Warmac may be you can find something in it that I didn’t see, did he actually say anything other than sound bite headliners? As I said he states many numbers “facts”, but he doesn’t follow any of it up with an equation. I really don’t think he’s smart enough to really deal with complex subjects.
Now if he had come right out and said his economic plan was to have everyone inherit millions of dollars from their fathers I could conclude he is smarter than I think.
So a business tax cut to 15% isn’t a detail. So freezing regulations isn’t a detail. So reassessing all our trade deals isn’t a detail. So eliminating the death tax isn’t a detail. So making day care 100% tax deductible isn’t a detail. So opening up coal mines isn’t a detail. But most important of all – he will bring back American jobs and focus on America rather than the globalist crap of the left.
No these are not details. Every number represents a part of an equation. The details are in the equation. All I get out of this is that rich people can now get a 100% tax deduction for their nannies.
Vote Trump 2016