NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump

Wednesday, Donald Trump spent the day doing his whole illegal immigration schtick. First with a visit to Mexico to talk with their president, then with a big speech on illegal immigration, one which made sure people understood that he was not backsliding on deportations (until he backslides again, because he has long held the position of allowing non-criminal illegals the ability to have “touchback” amnesty). The speech itself was very good, and well worth the read. He laid out a 10 point plan, which also delved into stopping legal visa holders from dangerous areas who hold ideas incompatible with American society. Many parts of the speech stick out. Here’s one of them

We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.

Meanwhile, the New York Times allows David Malpas, a senior economic advisor to the Trump campaign (yeah, I was kinda shocked that he had one, too), to write an op-ed, which received Internet front page status, all of which is rather unusual for the Fish Wrap

Why This Economy Needs Donald Trump

This year, the media has been focused largely on the election process — campaign managers, speaking styles, every slip and misstep. That’s been entertaining, but the policy differences between the two sides are much more important, and the most crucial difference may be over economic policy.

Donald J. Trump has campaigned very clearly for change — a policy upheaval to promote faster growth, repair the economic stagnation and end the corrupt pay-to-play system that favors the well heeled. Hillary Clinton has pledged to extend and build on the policies of the Obama administration.

There is no doubt who has the better plan. Our economy is growing at only 1.1 percent per year, a fraction of our average rate, and the Congressional Budget Office forecasts just 2 percent annual growth (in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product) for the next 10 years.

Yes, we went through a deep recession, but it ended in 2009. The recovery has been the weakest in decades, and the first that has actually pushed median incomes down. Business investment and profits are lower now than a year ago. Counterproductive federal policies squash small businesses with inane regulatory sprawl that affects hiring, taxes, credit and medical care.

All great points. Many have recommended that Trump spend the bulk of his time talking about the economy, and bread and butter issues. He’s still spending more time on illegal immigration, though, which, outside of his base (which wants a wall and deportation) and the far left Dem base (which wants amnesty), it is a low ranking issue.

To restart growth, Mr. Trump would immediately lower tax rates, including for middle-income voters, and simplify the tax code. Americans would be able to exempt average child-care expenses from taxes, and Mr. Trump’s administration would eliminate the death tax, which falls especially hard on some small businesses and farmers.

To help create a flood of new business investment and jobs, the Trump plan would reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent while eliminating or capping many tax deductions. This would simplify the tax system, making us much more competitive with countries and a magnet for new jobs.

Mrs. Clinton wants to go in the opposite direction, depressing job growth with an uncompetitive corporate tax rate, higher taxes on estates and short-term capital gains, and a 4 percent surtax on the most successful individuals.

For all the complaints one might make about corporations, many of whom get sweetheart tax deals from both Republican and Democrat state administrations, many do not want to have their main headquarters in the U.S. because of our high tax rate (39%), the highest in the 1st World. There’s a reason they love going to places like Ireland (12.5 corporate tax rate). Lower rates equals more jobs and more taxes, because 39% of zero is zero (if we’re doing real math, not Common Core).

And, yes, Hillary would be more of the same that has made the American people think that the recession has not ended.

Critics of tax cuts say the government can’t afford his plan. But what the economy can’t afford is the current inept tax system, slow growth and Mrs. Clinton’s $1.1 trillion in tax hikes.

Government should learn to live within their means, much as successful businesses do. Much as families do. When they don’t they shut down or go into bankruptcy. Furthermore, when more people are working and more companies are making a profit, they actually pay more in taxes, and there are more being taxed. So more money heads to the state and federal treasuries. Wild how that works, right? People not working/companies not making money equals no taxes. Huh. Which is better? You can’t pull blood from a stone.

The scant economic gains in the past eight years are even weaker for most Americans than the G.D.P. data indicates because federal policy favored gains for the haves, not the have-nots. Your prosperity is increasing if you work in finance, issuing bonds or trading currencies, or you lobby or arrange government contracts. If not, you’ve most likely gone backward financially.

Wages are stagnant if not down. But the cost of living has mostly gone up. This is the reality for average citizens, who do not get to jet around on luxurious jumbo jets to attend fundraisers and play golf with celebrities and sports stars.

Voters will have an opportunity to decide for or against a government that’s failing on health care, taxes, trade, cost control and regulation. One candidate wants higher tax rates. The other would lower them. One candidate thinks the economic recovery has been successful whereas the other thinks it left millions of Americans out. One candidate has spent her lifetime seeking the presidency. Mr. Trump hasn’t.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” It’s time for one now.

There certainly could have been more detail, but the op-ed makes the point: Hillary is for more government intervention, more regulation, more taxes. Trump says he’s against those. He’s for freeing the economy. She’s for micromanaging it. It’s a good message.

Trump should spend his time on this message.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

24 Responses to “NY Times: This Economy Needs Donald Trump”

  1. john says:

    Teach seems to be ready to vote for Trump.

  2. john says:

    Teach take a look at what happened in one of the most conservative states when they followed a Trump like plan of cutting taxes.
    Why would anyone listen to a conservative economic plan after watching them completely destroy the economy in 2008???
    You complain about the slow recovery from a disaster caused by the GOP
    You don’t want Clinton as POTUS? Don’t vote for her, but she sure seems well on her way to 1600 PA Ave

  3. Dana says:

    The scant economic gains in the past eight years are even weaker for most Americans than the G.D.P. data indicates because federal policy favored gains for the haves, not the have-nots. Your prosperity is increasing if you work in finance, issuing bonds or trading currencies, or you lobby or arrange government contracts. If not, you’ve most likely gone backward financially.

    Wages are stagnant if not down. But the cost of living has mostly gone up. This is the reality for average citizens, who do not get to jet around on luxurious jumbo jets to attend fundraisers and play golf with celebrities and sports stars.

    Who knows, maybe it’s all a scam, but at least to judge by his and his campaign’s public statements, the billionaire Donald Trump, who is the son of a wealthy man, actually understands what the commoners go through in their daily lives than the nouveau riche Clintons. Bill Clinton grew up poor, and while Hillary Clinton’s family wasn’t poor, they weren’t particularly wealthy, either, but they, or at least Mrs Clinton, have forgotten their roots.

    This is why the Democrats have lost the white working class voters: they don’t understand them now, if they ever did. The left propose policies that they think would be just absotively, posilutely wonderful, but all of them cost money, money that they have to take out of the pockets of the American taxpayers, out of the pockets of working people.

    I doubt that Mr Trump will help the economy very much, but at least he’s unlikely to hurt it the way that the Democrats and their ever-increasing regulations on businesses would.

  4. john says:

    Cutting taxes ? Maybe we can try to break Bush’s all time budget deficit record !!

  5. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    Cutting taxes ? Maybe we can try to break Bush’s all time budget deficit record !!

    Too late: Barack Hussein Obama left that way in the dust!

  6. Hoagie says:

    Cutting taxes ? Maybe we can try to break Bush’s all time budget deficit record !!

    John, you really o live in some crazy alternate universe, don’t you? While Bush’e deficits never breached $500 billion, Obama has had four deficits over one trillion dollars from 2009-2013.. source: usgovernmentspending.com

    Is there any information you receive from a reliable source rather than just parrot false democrat propaganda?

  7. Jeffery says:

    Economists (except for the one Trump pays) say Trump’s economic plan will lead to a major recession and result in overall GDP growth averaging less than 1% per year through 2020. The CBO says his plans will lead to massive yearly deficits. This is more voodoo, supply side, trickle down economic nonsense. Cut taxes for the wealthy and see how the economy grows! Didn’t work then, won’t work now.

    Taxes now on the wealthy are at post-WWII lows. How’s the economy doing?

    When the middle class was expanding most rapidly the top marginal rate on income was over 90%. 90 friggin’ percent! And we built the middle class and public schools, we paid down the massive WWII debt, built roads, rebuilt Europe and created the interstate highway system. And we still had wealthy folks and companies and people clamoring to join us.

    When the uber-wealthy pay their fair share year after year, that money is circulated and re-circulated in society – building roads, infrastructure, improving schools, paying soldiers, researching new medicines – that’s when it “trickles down” – not when it’s banked by rich families.

    In 1852 a committee appointed by the governor of Vermont wrote a report for the legislature which included the following:

    Taxation is the price which we pay for civilization, for our social, civil and political institutions, for the security of life and property, and without which, we must resort to the law of force.

    The movement afoot to eliminate taxes is a movement to destroy the nation – to return to the law of force instead of the force of law.

    So by all means Mr. Trump. Cut you and your family’s and your company’s taxes even further. Reward the donor class even more. Paris Hilton hates paying taxes. Cause another recession and throw even more good folks out of work. But if you plutocrats think for one minute that the working classes won’t eventually come back with torches and pitchforks you are seriously misguided. The people didn’t vote for you and for Bernie Sanders because they wanted to reward the wealthy even more!

    Did Senator Manchin’s daughter, CEO of Mylan, hire more folks when she “registered” their HQ to the Netherlands? Her salary DID go from $2 million a year to $19 million a year, though. How much of that $19 million gets reinvested into the community? They bought a drug device (EpiPen), lobbied Congress to get it into schools (much like defibrillators are everywhere now) and quadrupled the price – taking money out of the pockets of working families and taxpayers (who pay for Medicaid and Medicare). And the CEO got a raise to $19 million a year. Mylan is getting rich off US taxpayers and move their fooking HQ to Europe to avoid paying US taxes! And the CEO’s dad, Senator Manchin (D-WV) gets to vote on it! And no free market here. The US gov’t is keeping competitors out for now – even though EpiPen’s are off-patent – and the middle class suffers for this redistribution.

  8. john says:

    Hoagie the 2009 budget was signed by Bushin 2008 The budget is agreed on one year in advance
    What is most amusing is when you call others idiots
    Hoagie you are an intellectual GIANT !!
    And don’t blame th Dem controlled Congress that budget buster was signed off with bipartisan support. The reason for that huge deficit was the bottom completely fell out of the economy. The Dow went from 14xxx to 6xxx
    And even then some were predicting 4xxx fortuanately the limited stimulus turned it around. That is one reason why Obama is still doing well in the polls 300% higher than your last GOP POTUS
    Hoagie most people are pleased with Obama you are in the minority

  9. david7134 says:

    No Jeff, economist are not saying that unless they are the wacky liberals. Real economist know that tax cuts stimulate the economy every time they are used. Get used to it, it is coming.

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    Hoagie the 2009 budget was signed by Bushin 2008

    So the retard revises history besides being an idiot…

    The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[5] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

  11. Dana says:

    John needs to see the drug test lady:

    Hoagie the 2009 budget was signed by Bushin 2008 The budget is agreed on one year in advance

    Well, President Bush should have signed the FY2009 appropriations into law, but couldn’t, because the Democrats who controlled both Houses of Congress didn’t pass them. (The Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans’ Affairs appropriations had been passed.) Instead, FY2009 began with continuing resolutions, extending the FY2008 budget, because the Democrats expected to win the White House, and figured that they’d be able to get their spending increases through without having to get around a Republican President.

    The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 was introduced on February 23, 2009, after President Bush had left office, passed on February 25th, and them passed by the Senate on March 10th; President Obama signed it into law the following day.

    Who knows, perhaps President Bush would have signed the highest deficits in history into law, if Congress had passed the appropriations bills in time. But they didn’t pass them, so President Bush never signed them.

  12. Hoagie says:

    Thank you drowningpuppies and Dana for covering for me in my absence. I had pulmonary therapy while john was making a fool of himself calling me an “intellectual GIANT!!”

    I never claimed to be an intellectual or even that smart john, only leftists believe such silly things. But I have what you will never have: common sense. I’m often wrong and that’s how one learns. You on the other hand are always so cock-sure you’re right about everything you sound like an idiot.

    You still keep saying what the “majority” says, thinks or believes like somehow if there are more idiots who agree with you that would make you correct.. It doesn’t. It makes you part of the shallow end of the gene pool. Try not to drown.

  13. Liam Thomas says:

    @Jeffery

    It actually doesnt matter….If elected the Democrats will either be in charge of one or both houses and will decline to do ANYTHING Trump wants.

    Secondly if the GOP maintains control of both the Democrats will just filibuster everything and gridlock will ensue guaranteeing that NOTHING GETS DONE.

    Trump is an Idiot….His policies would never fly and once he was put in the White House every advisor this side of Valdy Putin would tell him his policies arent going to fly on trade etc….etc.

    OH NO>>>>WAIT>>>>OBAMA SET A PRECEDENT………He worked out a deal with IRAN that FORBADE THE SENATE TO ACT ON IT……..

    So now every president just have to figure out what they want then work deals with foreign governments that forbids the Senate with oversight.

    What a swell president Obama has been……..Trump will just write executive action after executive action over and over again….bypassing congress because HEY it sorta worked for Obama….Why Not Trump…….

    Ohh what a dangerous web he weaved with his Harry Reid enabler pissing on the constitution to make sure he got his political way……you better pray that Trump doesnt get in the White House because we all know…….

    That the press and YOU will be screaming at his Rule by Fiat…since hes not a Democrat.

  14. Konnie says:

    Do you not know that under Bill Clinton, Jamie Gorelick (one woman demolition squad-under Dems, this is a resume enhancer) threatened banks that they would be prosecuted, yes prosecuted, if they did not lend to minorities that only had to have a pulse. Look it up. It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that the banks would try to unload these toxic loans. Self-inflicted injury brought to you by the idiots in Washington, this time, as usual, by the Democratic Party. THEY CAUSED IT, then blamed it on dumbass George Bush.

  15. Jeffery says:

    Obama has issued the fewest Executive Orders per year of any President since Grover Cleveland (1889).

    Nearly 1/10th as many per year as FDR. 40% fewer than St. Reagan.

    Here’s a list comparing some of our Presidents’ records on E.O.s:

    Name, Number

    Theodore Roosevelt, 1,081
    Franklin Roosevelt, 3,522
    Harry Truman, 907
    Dwight Eisenhower, 484
    John Kennedy, 214
    Lyndon Johnson, 325
    Richard Nixon, 346
    Gerald Ford, 169
    Jimmy Carter, 320
    Ronald Reagan, 381
    George H.W. Bush, 166
    Bill Clinton, 364
    George W. Bush, 291
    Barack Obama, 227

  16. Konnie says:

    Oh yeah, she’s the woman that instituted “the wall” between the CIA and FBI, leading to nobody sharing information. Brilliant, right? Then, THEN they put her in charge of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which immediately started to tank. Of course, she made millions in bonuses, because ‘she did such a great job.’ Good Gosh, I’m so sick of these people. They cause all our problems, then tell us that they only need billions and billions to ‘fix it’. They should be hung.

  17. Jeffery says:

    Konnie,

    Can you supply the evidence rather than telling me to “look it up”? I think you are wrong – not necessarily lying – just wrong. It’s been my experience that much of what conservatives believe to be true is actually false.

    What you’ve repeated is a conserva-myth.

    Sub-prime loans hovered around 10% of loans until 2004 when the percentage shot up to over 20% of loans until the housing market collapse. Was Bill Clinton pulling the levers in the Bush administration years after Bill left office?

    You might “look up” the SEC and the 2004 change in the net capital rule. Certainly deregulating the banks stimulated the BANKS’ economy, but brought the world’s economies to their knees.

    These mortgage banks and investment were essentially ponzi schemes with the execs taking out billions, leaving homeowners and taxpayers to clean up the mess – the bankers faced little risk – they were too big to fail. This is not how it’s supposed to work. Too big to fail should be too big to exist. This was a massive redistribution of wealth from the working class/taxpayers to the wealthy.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Jamie Gorelick was a money grubber and a horrible manager but was never in charge of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

  19. Jeffery says:

    Der Krazy Trumpenfuhrer will “order” local police to capture and deport “2 million” “criminal illegals” in his first hour!!

    Tough guy!

    Yet when faced with the President of Mexico, tough guy der Trumpenfuhrer mewed like a little kitten, no longer bragging about making Mexico pay for his big beautiful wall!

    In der Trumpenfuhrer’s big speech, several years from now, with millions of “illegals” still here, they will face “the appropriate disposition”, i.e., letting them stay and not bothering them. LOL.

  20. Jeffery says:

    Do the Covians resent subsidizing The Donald’s lifestyle? He pays no federal taxes so you and I and all taxpaying workers are taking up the slack.

    Or do you support no one paying federal taxes?

  21. Liam Thomas says:

    ONE OF THE largest supporters of the Clinton Foundation is? Western UNION…..

    Why is that?

    Well Trump has said he will simply tax money going to Mexico Via Western Union. This is how he proposes to have Mexico pay for the wall. Now gee I wonder why Western Union has given so much money to the Clinton Foundation….I know, I know its that they are such a generous, caring corporation whose only interest is in helping the poor and deprived around the world.

    This is just another in a long line of why Clinton is such a lying Money grubbing power seeker. Her perscription is to just continue to print money. Hey its worked for obama why not Hillary….

    And say….since were talking about a congress with no budget why doesnt Obama simply print a trillion and fix all that infrastructure your so keen on fixing?

    My guess would be a solution to a problem….gives the Dems one less thing to blame on the GOP so they can continue to get reelected.

    Jamie Gorelick was a money grubber and a horrible manager but was never in charge of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

    HUH?

    she was appointed as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae in 1997 and served in that role through 2003.

    As far a executive action……..CONTEXT matters…..

    Its not the number of actions….its the types…..100’s of FDR’s progressive Fiats were shot down by the supreme court…..Many of Obamas are facing the same fates…..Its whats in those EXEC actions thats important….like destroying coal with an executive action is far and away more powerful then naming a school after an astronaut.

    Context matters….When faced with facts you leftist just rely on polling or stats….when the stats work against you then you change the subject…..

  22. Jeffery says:

    Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines ran Fannie Mae. She was never associated with Freddie Mac. Context matters but so do facts.

    It’s annoying when actual facts get in the way of an otherwise good argument. When your misdirection about Obama’s E.O.s is exposed you claim Obama’s are just worse than the others, lol. They’re worse because you disagree with them. Facts matter.

    An E.O. didn’t destroy coal, the markets did.

  23. Jeffery says:

    Western Union contributing to the CGI is proof that Secretary Clinton is a “lying Money grubbing power seeker” and will print money? Huh?

    How much did Western Union contribute?

    Your recommendation for fixing the infrastructure is for the President to unilaterally print money and just do it, LOL? Why would the President ever have to worry about the debt limit? Why have a Congress at all? Let’s just have a King.

    Here’s a brief tutorial on the Fed and money supply.

    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/08/fight-recession.asp

    Liam – where were you born? Do you understand anything about America?

Bad Behavior has blocked 5963 access attempts in the last 7 days.