The idiocy of Trumpism: POLITICO-Harvard poll: Amid Trump's rise, GOP voters turn sharply away from free trade

[Oceander]

Trump's economic program is different in that it put the interest of ordinary Americans first, ahead of other countries, Ivy League bubble heads, and multi-national corporations. Its understandable that such a drastic change in economic philosophy makes globalist shills like Romney advisor Stuart Spencer queasy. Fortunately millions of American voters of all kinds have woken up to the fact that these rat-faced establishment elites have been peddling the same economic horse manure for decades with zero positive effect for this nation..and they aren't having any more of it.

Take your dried tofu and Belgian endive bub and bring me some rare steak and mashed potatoes! ^-^

Are you kidding me?  The Tax Foundation's analysis demonstrates that, as bad as Clinton's plan is, Trump's is even worse.  Clinton kicks the can down the road and increases the debt our kids and grandkids will have to pay.  Trump goes her one better and kicks the can so far down the road our grandkids' grandkids will be paying for his idiocy.

It's pretty god-damned pathetic when you make a liberal look fiscally prudent.

[Suppressed]

Trump's economic program is different in that it put the interest of ordinary Americans first,

Baloney!

If he didn't hate ordinary Americans, he wouldn't propose dumping on them so badly, cutting their effective wages by a third by driving up consumer costs.  He's so proud to be padding union and business leaders' wallets on the backs of ordinary Americans, knowing that many people no longer think things through thesevdays.

Despicable, loathsome anti-American troll, he is.

[Cripplecreek]

I notice the democrats are running against republicans on the same anti trade platform Trump ran against republicans in the primary.

Its almost too convenient.

[LMAO]

GWB raised tariffs on steel in 2002 and the results were predictable. Despite the campaign rhetoric and his lack of understanding of basic economic principles, a President Trump will not change much when it comes to trade.

[INVAR]

GWB raised tariffs on steel in 2002 and the results were predictable. Despite the campaign rhetoric and his lack of understanding of basic economic principles, a President Trump will not change much when it comes to trade.

No.  He will kill what is left of it.

True unadulterated corporate fascism will replace what was once free trade.

And Hoover will look like a piker in the protectionism department.

[Longmire]

Baloney! If he didn't hate ordinary Americans, he wouldn't propose dumping on them so badly, cutting their effective wages by a third by driving up consumer costs. 

Actually Trump's economic philosophy is quintessentially American with roots going back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States. The American school or National system has been employed by this country from Reconstruction to the 1970s, so it's not some pie in the sky economic theory. I'd also point out that Trump's got an Ivy league degree in economics, so he's no slouch on the subject in addition to being a very astute businessman.

I don't expect every line item of Trump's plan to be enacted into legislation, but the likelihood of passing a substantial tax reform program that will kick start economic growth, while reforming our trade policy to focus on American jobs is quite high.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Actually Trump's economic philosophy is quintessentially American with roots going back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States. The American school or National system has been employed by this country from Reconstruction to the 1970s, so it's not some pie in the sky economic theory. I'd also point out that Trump's got an Ivy league degree in economics, so he's no slouch on the subject in addition to being a very astute businessman.

I don't expect every line item of Trump's plan to be enacted into legislation, but the likelihood of passing a substantial tax reform program that will kick start economic growth, while reforming our trade policy to focus on American jobs is quite high.

Don't forget deregulation at home .... 

[geronl]

The trains will run on time too.

AMTRAK doesn't run on time now, I guess more government money should help, lol.

[Suppressed]

Actually Trump's economic philosophy is quintessentially American with roots going back to Alexander Hamilton and the founding of the United States.

Hamilton, the guy who wanted an American monarchy, and argued for lifetime Presidency and Senate? 

Yes, such policies are great for a fledgling economy, but they trade that protection for prosperity.  They transferred wealth from the citizen to the business sector, so it could succeed.  But it's not American to have a long-term goal of making the citizen servile to business.

The American school or National system has been employed by this country from Reconstruction to the 1970s, so it's not some pie in the sky economic theory.

Whoa, those roaring 1970s...let's emulate them, instead of the boom after we freed ourselves from the shackles!  </sarcasm>

Isn't it funny how economies that use protectionism are held back, but those that use free trade tend to boom?  The citizens in those economies do better, too, other than the fat cats who benefit on the backs of consumers.

I'd also point out that Trump's got an Ivy league degree in economics, so he's no slouch on the subject in addition to being a very astute businessman.

 

Funny...your fellow Trumpians blasted me when I pointed out their epithets against Ivy Leaguers would include the buffoon himself.  They rightly pointed out that Wharton is not really Ivy League, as it's just the business school.  Oh, I get so confused as to which story to use when!

I don't expect every line item of Trump's plan to be enacted into legislation, but the likelihood of passing a substantial tax reform program that will kick start economic growth, while reforming our trade policy to focus on American jobs is quite high.

Trouble is, we're not in an Alexander Hamilton America now.  Remember that thing called the 16th Amendment?  That wasn't around in early America, so now we already have a big burden on ordinary Americans.  I applaud Trump if he will try to relieve that burden, but his plans to increase costs on ordinary Americans when they're already stagnated is just plain sadistic.

Fascist-style central planning -- where Trump will decide on winners and losers -- might sound good, but if you look at where it has been tried, such as Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc., it has been horrible for the people.

I love my fellow Americans too much to support such policies.

[Suppressed]

Don't forget deregulation at home .... 

Deregulation can be enacted raising the cost-of-living on Americans by 45%.

[Longmire]

   

Hamilton, the guy who wanted an American monarchy, and argued for lifetime Presidency and Senate?

Yeah the original architect of the American economy and first Secretary of the Treasury whose contributions earned him a spot on the national currency...that guy.


Whoa, those roaring 1970s...let's emulate them, instead of the boom after we freed ourselves from the shackles!  </sarcasm>

The move to fiat currency and fractional reserve banking played a large role in that breakdown, and that boom you're referring to was the result of the same kind of tax reform that Trump is proposing. If you believed your own rhetoric you'd support Trump.


Funny...your fellow Trumpians blasted me when I pointed out their epithets against Ivy Leaguers would include the buffoon himself.  They rightly pointed out that Wharton is not really Ivy League, as it's just the business school.  Oh, I get so confused as to which story to use when!

That sounds like a problem you're having, not me. 


Fascist-style central planning -- where Trump will decide on winners and losers -- might sound good, but if you look at where it has been tried, such as Fascist Italy, the USSR, etc., it has been horrible for the people.

Nothing Trump has proposed is worse than the system we're currently living with under Obama, in fact Trump plans to roll back much of the Obama agenda starting with Obamacare.

Electing Clinton would be an extension of that agenda, so it would seem your 'outrage' over government intervention  and central planning is selective.

Your liberal bias is showing.

[sinkspur]

Hamilton, the guy who wanted an American monarchy, and argued for lifetime Presidency and Senate?


Nothing Trump has proposed is worse than the system we're currently living with under Obama, in fact Trump plans to roll back much of the Obama agenda starting with Obamacare.

Yeah. Roll back Obamacare and replace it with single payer, which Trump is very fond of. After all, as Trump says, we can't be like Republicans who are leaving "people to die in the streets."

You are so naive.

[Longmire]

Yeah. Roll back Obamacare and replace it with single payer, which Trump is very fond of.

No, Trump's rhetoric has been about deregulating the healthcare insurance industry.

I remember his 'erasing the lines' rebuttal to Rubio on that subject during the primary debates.

[Suppressed]

The handy thing about Trump is that he advocates multiple, contradictory policies, so you can always say he's advocated your pet one and ignore that he's also advocated abhorrent ones.

[DB]

No, Trump's rhetoric has been about deregulating the healthcare insurance industry.

I remember his 'erasing the lines' rebuttal to Rubio on that subject during the primary debates.

How does "deregulating" health care involve forcing coverage of preexisting conditions??? The only way you can cover preexisting conditions is by forcing everyone to buy health insurance because otherwise no one would buy it until they needed it. Trump originally supported the "mandate" until others "clarified" what the mandate meant, the primary issue with Obamacare, and he backtracked... Now he wants it both ways, coverage of preexisting conditions but you don't have to buy it which isn't logically possible. Only a fool who ignores reality buys that.

And now for the bottom line, nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the authority to manage/mandate our health care. Zip. The constitution spells out what the federal government has authority over and everything else is left to the states. The fact that you accept Trump dictating our healthcare terms means you already accept the premise of big government in our lives that is not restrained by the constitution. You claim to be a conservative but the evidence says otherwise.

[INVAR]

No, Trump's rhetoric has been about deregulating the healthcare insurance industry.

I remember his 'erasing the lines' rebuttal to Rubio on that subject during the primary debates.

You don't even know what your own prince has said and agreed with on the subject.

Like all the other True Believers, you loft upon Trump as fact what YOU PERSONALLY believe he will do.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

[goatprairie]

Trump was whom H.L. Mencken was thinking about when he said (paraphrase) for every complex problem there was a simple solution...and it was usually wrong.

[LMAO]

The fact that you accept Trump dictating our healthcare terms means you already accept the premise of big government in our lives that is not restrained by the constitution.

This seems to be the fight this election cycle. Instead of addressing our fiscal situation, both camps are fighting over not only who can grow the size and scope of the federal government, but who can then manage it better. Trump supporters argue that Trump is better equipped to run a large and growing federal government because he has experience managing big business. Her backers say she does because of her experience in Washington and politics.

Meanwhile, the rest of us, especially future generations, will get stuck with the bill

[Longmire]

@DB Trump has already indicated that he favors deregulating the healthcare insurance industry, which is a far cry from a single payer healthcare system.

Congress can repeal the  Obamacare insurance mandates any time it chooses, President Trump won't stand in their way.

None of this is remotely possible under President Clinton, so choose carefully.