Reaction around the world to first Trump-Clinton debate

[Chicog]

The problem with cutting corporate taxes is that there is a mistaken assumption that the money will be reinvested to boost the economy.

If you haven't worked out by now that corporations (and people like Trump) are just out to trouser cash as fast as possible, then you must have spent the last 10 years living in a cave.

If you want to boost the economy, raise taxes at the top and cut them at the bottom.

You'll get more spending and the economy will grow as a result.

All these ultra-greedy bastards that just stash cash contribute nothing to the economy.

"Wealth Creators" is a great slogan but the only wealth they create is for themselves. While they're making huge profits they are outsourcing jobs and manufacturing so that they can squeeze even more.

 

And it's this type of greed that led to the 2008 crash.

 

And it's precisely why the tax cuts that Ryan and Trump propose give a disproportionate amount of the benefits to the wealthy.

 

 

[Skywalker69]

2 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Link to "all this polls" that said so, please. 

 

Strange that the white supremacy site "Stormfront" said that Clinton won.

 

Even Stormfront Thinks Hillary Clinton Won The Debate.

 

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/even-stormfront-thinks-hillary-clinton-won-the-debate-1787121521

 

 

http://addictinginfo.org/2016/09/27/even-his-white-supremacist-base-is-knows-trump-blew-it-images/

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

 

 

Strange that the white supremacy site "Stormfront" said that Clinton won.

 

 

 

 

Not so strange. They probably invested in her foundation.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Not so strange. They probably invested in her foundation.

What a ridiculous and obviously false assertion. Very trumpian though. 

[Skywalker69]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

Not so strange. They probably invested in her foundation.

Probably? ?

Link please.

[Grubster]

12 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

Well we don't live in the 50's any longer unfortunately. You seem to be saying that higher taxes creates masses of high paying jobs but I think you have  the formula the wrong way around.The 50's was a time of development of mass production and high profitability so higher wages meant higher taxes were affordable. Times have changed. Not only was profitability so good that it only needed 1 person in a family to work, nowadays it takes 2. That is because taxes are  higher without the prosperity. In fact the marginal/income/state/ payroll taxes of today is 37% compared to 25% of the 50's.

https://www.aei.org/publication/were-taxes-really-higher-in-the-1950s/

 

Actually good companies do profit sharing and invest in a company culture that is inclusive especially if they value their employees as integral part of their operation.I take your point about technology eliminating jobs but that is technological progress which makes products cheaper and unfortunately you can't live in the past when there's open competition or you'll end up a 3rd world country. What's the alternative? Tax companies higher so they can't grow into innovative industries to employ more or do we go back to doing everything manually to employ masses of people? Then what would be the cost of products? Prohibitive ,basically unaffordable and industries would die.

Are you kidding Profits are ten fold higher today its just that those profits don't find their way down the ladder. Too big to fail banks, $800,000,000,000 paid to the big boys by the middle class taxpayer. This all after they made billions selling all the loans. I'm sure in your eyes it was the fault of the people buying the homes. If this trickle down continues for thirty more years .1 % of the people will have over 50% of the wealth in the USA. I'm sure it will be the working classes fault though, or maybe Jimmy Carters.

[Grubster]

10 hours ago, Chicog said:

The problem with cutting corporate taxes is that there is a mistaken assumption that the money will be reinvested to boost the economy.

If you haven't worked out by now that corporations (and people like Trump) are just out to trouser cash as fast as possible, then you must have spent the last 10 years living in a cave.

If you want to boost the economy, raise taxes at the top and cut them at the bottom.

You'll get more spending and the economy will grow as a result.

All these ultra-greedy bastards that just stash cash contribute nothing to the economy.

"Wealth Creators" is a great slogan but the only wealth they create is for themselves. While they're making huge profits they are outsourcing jobs and manufacturing so that they can squeeze even more.

 

And it's this type of greed that led to the 2008 crash.

 

And it's precisely why the tax cuts that Ryan and Trump propose give a disproportionate amount of the benefits to the wealthy.

 

 

Now wait a minute, you forgot to mention that the large Yacht companies are booming with business. Island sales are way up too.

[55Jay]

I've abandoned any hope for this guy but part of me still tunes in thinking maybe this time he won't act like an immature teenager. #disappointedyetagain.

 

One debate coach said Trump could "win" the debate if he just held it together and "acted" presidential.  Geez, you can't set the bar much lower than that and still, Trump managed to <deleted> it up.   He has trouble staying on point, seems to get lost in his own mental fog.  He blurts and can't control his facial expressions and body language, and these are not behavioral traits of a successful negotiator and deal maker.  He's lazy, won't prepare (much), has a hard time taking advice or criticism, and is still making excuses about not being a "politician" or a debater.  He's been at this a while.  Still unpolished, unprepared, no signs of learning, developing, improving.   

 

He's fine as an organizer or cheerleader for or against someone or something - Birther, Obama, Hillary.  Whatever, just feed him some talking points, wind him up and let him go.  But he's just not a serious candidate for POTUS, and that's too bad because we really could use one right about now.

[johnnywishbone]

For me personally
Clinton is a known quantity
A vacuous cipher.
Trump has potential.
I do not believe reports
He has rabies.
Even if he did
I'd vote for him over Clinton.
Can't screw up that much in 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Linzz]

21 hours ago, Grubster said:

Are you kidding Profits are ten fold higher today its just that those profits don't find their way down the ladder. Too big to fail banks, $800,000,000,000 paid to the big boys by the middle class taxpayer. This all after they made billions selling all the loans. I'm sure in your eyes it was the fault of the people buying the homes. If this trickle down continues for thirty more years .1 % of the people will have over 50% of the wealth in the USA. I'm sure it will be the working classes fault though, or maybe Jimmy Carters.

 

No no I'm with you on the banks. Examine why they support Hillary and not Trump. Trickle down did not cause the crisis, that is a different issue. Bill was responsible for the repeal of Glass Steagall which allowed banks to gamble with other people's money knowing that government will bail them out again, with other people's money. Certainly not the fault of people buying homes.  Actually I liked Jimmy Carter and still do. Having said that I just don't like Marxist/socialism but I believe in safety nets  at the bottom.The more taxation the poore people become and bigger the government and bureaucracy and governments do not create wealth. Your theory is the more you tax the more prosperous the country becomes. Why not tax 100% then and become a poor Communist country. 

[Grubster]

9 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

No no I'm with you on the banks. Examine why they support Hillary and not Trump. Trickle down did not cause the crisis, that is a different issue. Bill was responsible for the repeal of Glass Steagall which allowed banks to gamble with other people's money knowing that government will bail them out again, with other people's money. Certainly not the fault of people buying homes.  Actually I liked Jimmy Carter and still do. Having said that I just don't like Marxist/socialism but I believe in safety nets  at the bottom.The more taxation the poore people become and bigger the government and bureaucracy and governments do not create wealth. Your theory is the more you tax the more prosperous the country becomes. Why not tax 100% then and become a poor Communist country. 

I am or was supporting Trump because he was saying that he is going to go against the big money in the USA. Yes I am well aware Hillary is about big business. My original post I said I was disappointed that Trump said he would lower the tax on the rich to 15%.  I want you to look at the top tax rates during the lead up to the most prosperous times in the US, and then what happened shortly after we lowered the taxes. If you can't see it then you don't want to. If I make ten times more than the average person I would be proud to pay double the tax rate you do. You say maybe I would want 100% tax,   I say you are perfectly happy that some of the richest corporations in america pay zero tax. In fact some get subsidies on top of that from your tax dollars. 

[Jingthing]

For me personally
Clinton is a known quantity
A vacuous cipher.
Trump has potential.
I do not believe reports
He has rabies.
Even if he did
I'd vote for him over Clinton.
Can't screw up that much in 4 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.
You.
Can.

[Linzz]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

I am or was supporting Trump because he was saying that he is going to go against the big money in the USA. Yes I am well aware Hillary is about big business. My original post I said I was disappointed that Trump said he would lower the tax on the rich to 15%.  I want you to look at the top tax rates during the lead up to the most prosperous times in the US, and then what happened shortly after we lowered the taxes. If you can't see it then you don't want to. If I make ten times more than the average person I would be proud to pay double the tax rate you do. You say maybe I would want 100% tax,   I say you are perfectly happy that some of the richest corporations in america pay zero tax. In fact some get subsidies on top of that from your tax dollars. 

 

According to the below article the marginal tax rates bear little relationship with what is actually collected, so to make a case that high taxes rates will cause prosperity is questionable. I have always believed that it is a dynamic economy that has enabled higher taxes to be collected rather than it's cause.Trump wants to lower company tax  so it is possible that nothing much will change  doing that also. I think his reasoning is predicated on Reaganomics where a lowering of taxes ushered in a period of prosperity but I haven't studied it.

 

https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent

[Grubster]

7 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

According to the below article the marginal tax rates bear little relationship with what is actually collected, so to make a case that high taxes rates will cause prosperity is questionable. I have always believed that it is a dynamic economy that has enabled higher taxes to be collected rather than it's cause.Trump wants to lower company tax  so it is possible that nothing much will change  doing that also. I think his reasoning is predicated on Reaganomics where a lowering of taxes ushered in a period of prosperity but I haven't studied it.

 

https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent

Yes in fact the same amount is being collected, but the rich are paying a much higher share, leaving the working class with much more money to spend improving their standard of living. If you haven't seen the working class people on a hard downward tumble since trickle down started you haven't been watching.  Clinton and the Bushes only added to it as Reagan is some Sacred Man that knew all. Don't you think its time to bring a little more equality to the "working" people. If you are happy with CEO,s making 20 million while 90% of its employees make around $8 per hour good for you. I call it voluntary slavery. At least slaves didn't have to worry how they would pay the bills or where their next meal would come from.

[Jingthing]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes.
You.
Can.

Amplifying the rebuttal that trump can't do much damage:

 

 

Quote

 

The clear and present danger of Donald Trump

Your support of the Republican presidential nominee may be motivated by dislike of the Democratic alternative, disgust with the Washington establishment or a desire to send a message in favor of change. You may not approve of everything Mr. Trump has had to say about nuclear weapons, torture or mass deportations, but you doubt he could implement anything too radical. Congress, the courts, the Constitution — these would keep Mr. Trump in check, you think.

Well, think again. A President Trump could, unilaterally, change this country to its core. By remaking U.S. relations with other nations, he could fundamentally reshape the world, too.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wrecking-ball-in-the-white-house-the-damage-trump-could-do-from-day-one/2016/09/30/1c69e9cc-85b5-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na&utm_term=.c0ab28f917c7

 

[Bob9]

On 10/1/2016 at 2:01 PM, Jingthing said:

Amplifying the rebuttal that trump can't do much damage:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-wrecking-ball-in-the-white-house-the-damage-trump-could-do-from-day-one/2016/09/30/1c69e9cc-85b5-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na&utm_term=.c0ab28f917c7

 

 

Washington Post 

[Jingthing]

 
Washington Post 

Yes. Excellent source.

[Silurian]

For more world reaction, let's take a look at Russia, shall we? Surprise, surprise, Russians prefer Trump to Hillary. Dah.

 

What Do Russians Think of Donald Trump?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russians-donald-trump/story?id=42567691

 

[Bob9]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes. Excellent source.

We all know you need some better 'sources' - try these instead.

 

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/trump-vs-the-washington-post/

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/30/here-are-the-mainstream-reporters-who-are-open-about-their-anti-trump-bias/

 

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=41058

 

[Scott]

A post with incorrect formatting and also that violates Fair Use policy has been removed.  

[Linzz]

1 hour ago, Bob9 said:

 

Washington Post 

 

Washington Post is the left wing Fox news

[Jingthing]

 
Washington Post is the left wing Fox news

No it is not. Fox is for right wing morons. WAPO is for liberal intelligentsia.

[Linzz]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No it is not. Fox is for right wing morons. WAPO is for liberal intelligentsia.
 

 

Let me word that better. Washington Post is the equivalent of Fox News, but for the Left. I subscribed for a while then gave up on it because of it's relentless bias.

So you consider you are part of the intelligentsia do you? Oh

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

No it is not. Fox is for right wing morons. WAPO is for liberal intelligentsia.
 

 

 The Washington Post is a decent rag, if you ignore anything political. They are just as biased as Fox, but in the opposite direction.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

Let me word that better. Washington Post is the equivalent of Fox News, but for the Left. I subscribed for a while then gave up on it because of it's relentless bias.

So you consider you are part of the intelligentsia do you? Oh

I consider myself a lifetime fan of the Washington Post. I like the New York Times too! L.A. Times ain't chopped liver either. 

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Jingthing