Trump on making child care more affordable

[Bob Juch]

"Well, I would do that. And we’re sitting down. You know, I was somebody. We had Senator Marco Rubio. And my daughter, Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that -- because child care is child care. It’s -- couldn’t -- you know, it’s something -- you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. And those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have -- I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about make America great again. We have to do it, because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question."

[Weyoun]

Absolute raving stupidity. Thanks for posting it.

[kroxquo]

Tell me again - Which candidate has cognitive problems and lacks intelligence?

[flockofseagulls104]

Tell me again - Which candidate has cognitive problems and lacks intelligence?

Tell me again, what bored members are suffering from TDS?

Why don't you go back and look at some of Harris's answers to questions before she went into the bunker. She is really unburdened by her past by the media blackout of her actual record. Childcare is important, but it is not on the top 100 issues on the agenda, and I think trump did not have an answer for it. Besides. that is a legislative issue, not an executive issue. So he tried to do a sidestep on it. Not very well. Vance had an answer to it, but of course the leftwing media didn't like it.

Harris doesn't expose herself to any media, even if they're friendly to her. Trump talks to everybody.

[Pastor Fireball]

"Well, I would do that. And we’re sitting down. You know, I was somebody. We had Senator Marco Rubio. And my daughter, Ivanka, was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that -- because child care is child care. It’s -- couldn’t -- you know, it’s something -- you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly. And it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. And those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have -- I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about make America great again. We have to do it, because right now we’re a failing nation. So we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question."

First of all, this is old news. About two weeks old.

Second, I'm still waiting for somebody to translate this into English. I'm unable to comprehend pablum vomit.

[jarnon]

OK, I'll ignore the incoherence and respond to Trump’s argument.

At least he admits child care is needed for a strong economy, unlike his running mate who thinks mothers (“fertile women”) should stay home and raise kids themselves, with help if needed from grandmothers and aunties (“post-menopausal women”).

He claims his tariffs will raise more than enough revenue to pay for everyone’s child care. I’ll refute that with a simple example. Say China is exporting mushrooms at artificially lower prices, so American consumers buy 80% of their mushrooms from China and only 20% from Chester County, Pa. So Trump imposes a tariff, and China’s share of the mushroom market shrinks to 50%. (That’s good for the Chester County growers.) The government gets revenue from the 50% of mushrooms that are imported from China. However, 80% of consumers are paying more than they used to (50% because of the tariff and 30% because they’re now buying domestic mushrooms that were more expensive to begin with). The added expense paid by the American public (who now has less to spend on other necessities like child care) is always more than the added revenue. I took introductory economics in college and learned stuff like supply and demand and comparative advantage. Trump must have slept through that course at Penn.

He also maintains his policies will spur economic growth. Republicans make this promise every time they lower taxes on the wealthy, and it never happens. The Laffer curve (lower tax rates result in higher revenue) is aptly named.

(I did take a few digs at the GOP, as required in the political lounge.)

[BackInTex]

OK, I'll ignore the incoherence and respond to Trump’s argument.

At least he admits child care is needed for a strong economy, unlike his running mate who thinks mothers (“fertile women”) should stay home and raise kids themselves, with help if needed from grandmothers and aunties (“post-menopausal women”).

He claims his tariffs will raise more than enough revenue to pay for everyone’s child care. I’ll refute that with a simple example. Say China is exporting mushrooms at artificially lower prices, so American consumers buy 80% of their mushrooms from China and only 20% from Chester County, Pa. So Trump imposes a tariff, and China’s share of the mushroom market shrinks to 50%. (That’s good for the Chester County growers.) The government gets revenue from the 50% of mushrooms that are imported from China. However, 80% of consumers are paying more than they used to (50% because of the tariff and 30% because they’re now buying domestic mushrooms that were more expensive to begin with). The added expense paid by the American public (who now has less to spend on other necessities like child care) is always more than the added revenue. I took introductory economics in college and learned stuff like supply and demand and comparative advantage. Trump must have slept through that course at Penn.

He also maintains his policies will spur economic growth. Republicans make this promise every time they lower taxes on the wealthy, and it never happens. The Laffer curve (lower tax rates result in higher revenue) is aptly named.

(I did take a few digs at the GOP, as required in the political lounge.)

Your tariffs example is out of balance. Higher prices paid by consumers is offset by the revenue collected by the government. Now assuming the revenues not just sent to Ukraine, it reduces the tax burden for all

And as you may have learned in your introductory economics class, that higher price paid by consumers will reduce the total sales of mushrooms (assuming demand stays the same). This means some people spending money on mushrooms now won’t. But they’ll spend those funds on something else, providing an increase in earnings for whomever sells the alternative.

The net impact of tariffs is protecting domestic wages. And that’s a good thing. And helps pay child care.

[Weyoun]

You had made it to the third week of Econ 101, something called comparative advantage.

Some countries produce mushrooms cheaper for various reasons. This is universally fungible. They might also be making better mushrooms.

Tariffs skew that. History has shown they inevitably raise prices and limit choice. Those most impacted of course are the poor.

Outside of the 19th century, tariffs also have not been a serious way to raise revenue in the United States. The money is simply not there. If you raise them too much, people simply stop buying that good and you lose the revenue stream altogether. That’s why there was great pressure for an income tax starting around of the 19th century.

Your type of thinking would’ve been anathema for a free market Republican back in the day, but for a bootlick fascist who justifies things because of misguided nationalism, I assume it must make some kind of internal sense.

[Weyoun]

By the way, there’s no particular reason to think that wages will go up. I think that Trump thinks that wages will go up if we chase off illegal immigrants, but then you have to balance out with the fact that everything’s gonna be more expensive if labor costs more.

But then there’s a fact that it’s unclear if Trump is interested in collective bargaining or enforcing labor laws, so it is possible that wages will remain depressed, regardless.

But there’s no reason to think that if we block goods into the country, our workers will start making more money

[Beebs52]

Gosh BiT, I didn't know this about you.

"but for a bootlick fascist who justifies things because of misguided nationalism, I assume it must make some kind of internal sense."

[flockofseagulls104]

Gosh BiT, I didn't know this about you.

"but for a bootlick fascist who justifies things because of misguided nationalism, I assume it must make some kind of internal sense."

I wanna be that!
Is that like a lying dog faced pony soldier? So much better than a deplorable.

Unfortunately, I don't have room for either of those on my signature.

[Beebs52]

Yeah, you'll have to remove heathen bastard or sumpin.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yeah, you'll have to remove heathen bastard or sumpin.

Maybe the statistics and polling one. That's pretty long. But I have to get someone to apply that epithet specifically to me.

I miss SSS. He was good at those. Ifonly is prolific, but somewhat scattered and generic. Not only with epithets, but in general.

[flockofseagulls104]

You had made it to the third week of Econ 101, something called comparative advantage.

Some countries produce mushrooms cheaper for various reasons. This is universally fungible. They might also be making better mushrooms.

Tariffs skew that. History has shown they inevitably raise prices and limit choice. Those most impacted of course are the poor.

Outside of the 19th century, tariffs also have not been a serious way to raise revenue in the United States. The money is simply not there. If you raise them too much, people simply stop buying that good and you lose the revenue stream altogether. That’s why there was great pressure for an income tax starting around of the 19th century.

Your type of thinking would’ve been anathema for a free market Republican back in the day, but for a bootlick fascist who justifies things because of misguided nationalism, I assume it must make some kind of internal sense.

You only put tariffs on stuff WE make. And that we want to be able to sell to other countries.

Here's the example: We can't sell Ford or GM cars in Europe or Japan. Why? Because they protect their domestic cars by tariffs of their own. So we let them know we are going to do the same to their cars coming here. Faced with the prospect at losing a big market for their Mercedes and Hondas, there is now a negotiating point. They don't want to play ball, the market for domestic cars is open, and consumers will need to buy more American made cars. More are made here. Our prices don't go up, but the domestic auto industry expands. Foreign cars are more expensive.

However, the win/win situation is to level the playing field. Foreign countries take off their tariffs, allowing more US cars to be sold there. US auto industry expands. Even better, we give tax breaks for foreign auto makers to manufacture their cars here in order to sell them here. The market is free. Our economy expands. (As long as we build competitive cars, which we will be able to do once unneeded regulations are gotten rid of.)

Tariffs can be used very effectively by someone who knows how to use them.