Post: #1

Yes, another Trump thread.

I wanted to get a discussion going to analyze Trump's policies, whether they be his proposed tariffs on foreign goods or his aversion to the H1B visa.

The Trump thread is awesome, but it moves so fast (ie has WAY TOO MUCH ENERGY) that it's become more like a chat room for the live feed that is Donald Trump's life. That's great, but sometimes I see legitimate questions and discussions buried simply because our collective energy level is over 9000.

Most of us know where to find Trump's official policy papers, but here they are anyway:

Healthcare Reform

US-China Trade Relations

VA Reforms

Tax Reforms

2nd Amendment Rights

Immigration Reforms

These are only his official policy papers, and don't mention things like his stance on H-1B visas (they suck) or our military (it needs to be rebuilt and made stronger through efficiency, not by making it bigger).

My personal reasons for starting this topic were that I'm tired of digging for information to explain Trump's positions in a thoughtful and credible way, rather than blowing out people with rhetoric and sarcasm. It feels great to say "tax the hell out of Chinese goods," but I want to tell them why we should tax Chinese goods.

And that's where I'll start: Trump wants to place high tariffs on foreign goods entering America, to reverse our free (for everyone but us) trade deals with most of the world. The major criticism I see is that raising tariffs would increase our cost of living in the short term, putting the screw to the middle and lower class.

But does Trump want to smash countries with a huge tariff all at once, or will he create a gradually increasing tariff that grows our economy enough to offset the immediate negative side effects?

I know there is already a thread here on trade and currency manipulation, so please chime in with whatever topics you'd like to see too.

Post: #2

So far Trump hasn't touched many manosphere issues yet. Though just by virtue of bringing back high paying, masculine manufacturing jobs and reducing the number of government jobs divorce rates could go down.

Post: #3

(03-15-2016 05:23 PM)Enoch Wrote:  So far Trump hasn't touched many manosphere issues yet. Though just by virtue of bringing back high paying, masculine manufacturing jobs and reducing the number of government jobs divorce rates could go down.

I don't think he needs to do that directly. He is role modeling enough by being a super alpha family man with a hot wife, and daughters, all of whom have long hair, dresses and heels.

On policy, I like his tax proposals. He puts no tax on income under 25k, 50k for married people. Hidden within that is a secret jab...no tax also likely means no welfare handouts like the earned income tax credit for single moms.

he also leaves tax on the rich at pretty much status quo and goes for 15% corporate tax which would be yuge for large corps, currently sitting at 30 plus percent.

Post: #4

What I'm most curious about at the moment is his stance towards Israel and what he's going to say at his speech at AIPAC. I hope it'll be similar to his speech at the that Jewish Republican meeting

Post: #5

I wrote this dissection of Trump's taxation policies:

Quote:An effective taxation policy is where Donald Trump excels and will make a big difference. In order to be effective, such a policy must be done in a smart way - and that automatically excludes atrocities like a 90% tax on anyone making over $200k or a 50% corporate tax.

Low-hanging fruit like corporate tax would be the easiest to pick. It is well known (although not nearly enough) that many major corporations pay almost no taxes. While the corporate tax rate is nominally at 35%, the average corporation pays just 13%, with the largest corporation paying even less. Furthermore, 90% of all corporations (including 15 Fortune companies) pay no taxes at all!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...fed5654e2f
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...eed94052c4
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/09...Taxes-2014

Let's examine one of the most famous tax evaders: Apple. Apple might be the most famous and valuable corporation we have ever known, but it has paid ZERO taxes for years now. To pay that zero, Apple engages in many shenanigans and wastes a ton of its money to cycle it around the globe. It has subsidiaries in Ireland, Asia, Caribbean islands and practically everywhere you can imagine. This allows it to, using various tax loopholes, present all of its income as "foreign" and not subject to taxation.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leesheppard/...0df226d6f7

But why does Apple go through all those shenanigans? Well, obviously because the corporate tax rate of 35% is highly discouraging and makes if profitable. Even if you spend 30% to save the remaining 5%, you've still profited enormously.

Now imagine if the following exchange happened:

President Donald Trump: "Hey guys, come here and pay 15%, and you can stop engaging in those stupid shenanigans and wasting your money while hiding it."
Apple: "That's an attractive offer, but we need to think about it.
President Donald Trump: "By the way, if you refuse, we're going to slap your products with a 40% import tariff."
Apple: "..."
Apple: "We accept."

Result: Apples starts paying $8 billion/year in taxes instead of the 0 that it's paying now. Then apply the same method to companies like Ford, Nabisco, Google, Boeing... the potential is enormous.

Right now, the Cost/Benefit ratio of taxation is all screwed up. Paying taxes is very expensive and unrewarding. Avoiding taxes is very cheap and easy. If we upend it - if the prospect of paying taxes becomes easy/rewarding, and the prospect of not paying taxes becomes a terrible bet with severe consequences - you can bet that corporations will suddenly rediscover their zeal for being legal and obedient taxpayers.

Turn the motivation around and watch the tax receipts soar.

And this is not to even mention the increased employment and investment from companies suddenly having the motivation to operate plainly in the USA instead of God-knows-where in order to hide their manufacturing and R&D hubs and claim their income is "foreign". Major economic stimulus.

Other than this, Trump also has huge potential to reduce the outrageous federal expenditure that is spent on ridiculous stuff pushed by lobbyists. The prime example here is the famous F-35 lightning, whose cost has "unexplainably" climbed close to $2 trillion (whereas Russia's equivalent program will cost a few hundred million). Imagine how much you can save on healthcare, energy, farming subsidies and all other stuff if they are no longer controlled by lobbyists. The possibilities are simple staggering.

All we need is the will to try and Donald Trump, a candidate who doesn't accept campaign contributions from corporations and is not beholden to them.

Post: #6

(03-15-2016 05:23 PM)Enoch Wrote:  So far Trump hasn't touched many manosphere issues yet. Though just by virtue of bringing back high paying, masculine manufacturing jobs and reducing the number of government jobs divorce rates could go down.

The country isn't even close to read for manosphere politics. It will come in due time though if Trump wins. We need to push the envelope incrementally.

It's like banging a girl. You start with an opener, you don't just start with sex (that's called rape). We aren't here to rape the nation, we're going to seduce them.

Post: #7

Trump's tax plan is actually more progressive in many ways than Sander's tax plan.

Sanders wants to increase taxes on the rich:

https://berniesanders.com/issues/making-...air-share/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-...nequality/

But Sanders does not say anything about lowering the tax burden on the poor.

Meanwhile, Trump wants to lower taxes and cut tax-loopholes across the board:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

The first 25K is tax free under Trump. There will be far fewer tax deductions with Trump as well.

And because corporations will be paying big tariffs if they continue to produce crap with third-world slave labor, that will be further revenue added to US Tax coffers.

Sanders plan, which raises taxes to astronomical proportions, would almost guaranteed cause capital flight.

Meanwhile, Hillary isn't offering to change much other than raise taxes on the rich and a few other cosmetic changes to the tax code: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/pl...n-incomes/


When comparing all of these plans, first thing to notice is that Hillary's plan doesn't change much. It's mostly cosmetic. It does nothing to address the trade imbalance. It does nothing to lower taxes on the working classes. Sanders is much more thorough than she is. But Sanders isn't going to make it to the general, so why care about Sanders?

Trump lowers the taxes on the middle class by more than half. Trump taxes corporations who work overseas while lowering taxes for corporations who work domestically, which encourages them to return to the US which means employing more American workers which means more income taxes collected.

Retards say Trump has no substance, and yet his plans have way more impact than Hillary's endless verbiage on her website.

Post: #8

(03-17-2016 11:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-15-2016 05:23 PM)Enoch Wrote:  So far Trump hasn't touched many manosphere issues yet. Though just by virtue of bringing back high paying, masculine manufacturing jobs and reducing the number of government jobs divorce rates could go down.

The country isn't even close to read for manosphere politics. It will come in due time though if Trump wins. We need to push the envelope incrementally.

It's like banging a girl. You start with an opener, you don't just start with sex (that's called rape). We aren't here to rape the nation, we're going to seduce them.

Ultimately, he shouldn't have to. He has helped so much already, just by standing up to media shaming.

Post: #9

Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

Post: #10

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

Just make it up as whatever you want it to cover. That's what this thread is for LDO.

Post: #11

(03-18-2016 05:55 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

Just make it up as whatever you want it to cover. That's what this thread is for LDO.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

Post: #12

(03-18-2016 05:58 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:55 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

Just make it up as whatever you want it to cover. That's what this thread is for LDO.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

This is not the "Trump Policy Thread." This is the "Trump Supporter's Projecting Their Desires Onto His Policy Thread."

Trump is a legit mack. Macking PUAs like he was born for it.

Post: #13

(03-18-2016 06:02 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:58 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:55 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

Just make it up as whatever you want it to cover. That's what this thread is for LDO.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

This is not the "Trump Policy Thread." This is the "Trump Supporter's Projecting Their Desires Onto His Policy Thread."

Trump is a legit mack. Macking PUAs like he was born for it.

The first thing you said is false.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

The second thing you said doesn't make ANY sense.

I sincerely advise you to log off RVF and come back when you are sober.

Post: #14

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

If trump just changed the tax brackets and left the existing tax forms the way they are, then yes it would apply to sole proprietors making under 25k.

Post: #15

(03-18-2016 06:36 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

If trump just changed the tax brackets and left the existing tax forms the way they are, then yes it would apply to sole proprietors making under 25k.

Thank you. This just made me about 30% more excited about a Trump presidency.

Does the POTUS have to go through the Senate or Congress to pass tax reform WITHOUT using an Executive order?

I didn't pay much attention in Social Studies when I was growing up. Now I regret it.

Post: #16

(03-18-2016 06:41 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 06:36 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

If trump just changed the tax brackets and left the existing tax forms the way they are, then yes it would apply to sole proprietors making under 25k.

Thank you. This just made me about 30% more excited about a Trump presidency.

Does the POTUS have to go through the Senate or Congress to pass tax reform WITHOUT using an Executive order?

I didn't pay much attention in Social Studies when I was growing up. Now I regret it.

It will have to go through the legislative process. The president can help craft it though with the appropriate representatives however.
Because i'm a shitlord:

Post: #17

Quote:The first thing you said is false.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

The second thing you said doesn't make ANY sense.

I sincerely advise you to log off RVF and come back when you are sober.

Do you know what a "loop-hole" typically is for a business or a high net worth individual? They involve the way "taxable earnings" are accounted for. That is, they are arbitrarily created accounting methods. However you define the terms, you create loop-holes.

As for trade, here is an excerpt from Trump at Miami debate:

Quote:The 45 percent tax is a threat. It was not a tax, it was a threat. It will be a tax if they don't behave. Take China as an example. I have many friends, great manufacturers, they want to go into China. They can't. China won't let them. We talk about free trade. It's not tree free trade, it's stupid trade.

China dumps everything that they have over here. No tax, no nothing, no problems, no curfews (ph), no anything. We can't get into China. I have the best people, manufacturers, they can't get in. When they get in, they have to pay a tremendous tax.

The 45 percent is a threat that if they don't behave, if they don't follow the rules and regulations so that we can have it equal on both sides, we will tax you. It doesn't have to be 45, it could be less. But it has to be something because our country and our trade and our deals and most importantly our jobs are going to hell.

This could be interpreted in at least two ways. (1) Trump will threaten tariffs to ensure American manufacturers can produce in China (regulatory arbitrage) considering America allows the Chinese to manufacture and operate in the US (2) Trump will threaten tariffs to ensure the Chinese don't prohibitively tariff American exports. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as "blah, blah, YUUUUGE job creation in America, blah. American is going to win!"

There is much for you to consider in the @BrowningMachine tweet of "We have to elect the candidate to find out what's in it." You, nor I, nor samseau or any other posters know what his policies are going to be. This is democracy, brah.

How is the second part not explicit? There is a very strong appeal to having an actual "leader/alpha" in the White House. Have you read "The Art of the Deal"?

Post: #18

(03-18-2016 06:48 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

Quote:The first thing you said is false.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

The second thing you said doesn't make ANY sense.

I sincerely advise you to log off RVF and come back when you are sober.

Do you know what a "loop-hole" typically is for a business or a high net worth individual? They involve the way "taxable earnings" are accounted for. That is, they are arbitrarily created accounting methods. However you define the terms, you create loop-holes.

As for trade, here is an excerpt from Trump at Miami debate:

Quote:The 45 percent tax is a threat. It was not a tax, it was a threat. It will be a tax if they don't behave. Take China as an example. I have many friends, great manufacturers, they want to go into China. They can't. China won't let them. We talk about free trade. It's not tree free trade, it's stupid trade.

China dumps everything that they have over here. No tax, no nothing, no problems, no curfews (ph), no anything. We can't get into China. I have the best people, manufacturers, they can't get in. When they get in, they have to pay a tremendous tax.

The 45 percent is a threat that if they don't behave, if they don't follow the rules and regulations so that we can have it equal on both sides, we will tax you. It doesn't have to be 45, it could be less. But it has to be something because our country and our trade and our deals and most importantly our jobs are going to hell.

This could be interpreted in at least two ways. (1) Trump will threaten tariffs to ensure American manufacturers can produce in China (regulatory arbitrage) considering America allows the Chinese to manufacture and operate in the US (2) Trump will threaten tariffs to ensure the Chinese don't prohibitively tariff American exports. Alternatively, it can be interpreted as "blah, blah, YUUUUGE job creation in America, blah. American is going to win!"

There is much for you to consider in the @BrowningMachine tweet of "We have to elect the candidate to find out what's in it." You, nor I, nor samseau or any other posters know what his policies are going to be. This is democracy, brah.

How is the second part not explicit? There is a very strong appeal to having an actual "leader/alpha" in the White House. Have you read "The Art of the Deal"?

Just because Trump does not name a specific number does not mean he is without intent to place tariffs against China. It's been explicit on his site for months now:

Quote:In a system of truly free trade and floating exchange rates like a Trump administration would support, America's massive trade deficit with China would not persist. On day one of the Trump administration the U.S. Treasury Department will designate China as a currency manipulator. This will begin a process that imposes appropriate countervailing duties on artificially cheap Chinese products, defends U.S. manufacturers and workers, and revitalizes job growth in America. We must stand up to China’s blackmail and reject corporate America’s manipulation of our politicians. The U.S. Treasury’s designation of China as a currency manipulator will force China to the negotiating table and open the door to a fair – and far better – trading relationship.

Who gives a shit what the final number is, even a 5% tariff is more than the 0% right now.

Your criticism is baseless, just like all of your posts in this thread.

Post: #19

(03-18-2016 06:02 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:58 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:55 PM)CombatDiet Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 05:48 PM)Aristotle Wrote:  Question:

Does the "Under 25k = no taxes" plan also apply to the self-employed? I'm talking about self-employed individuals with no LLC, C-corp, S-corp, or any other legal filings.

Just make it up as whatever you want it to cover. That's what this thread is for LDO.

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

This is not the "Trump Policy Thread." This is the "Trump Supporter's Projecting Their Desires Onto His Policy Thread."

Trump is a legit mack. Macking PUAs like he was born for it.

At 30 posts this kind of antagonistic sarcasm is a good way to get banned.

Post: #20

Ignore this guy, his entire posting history here has been calling out other members with smug, pseudo-intellectual babble. He's a Ted Cruz kind of guy.

Post: #21

I think the rise of China is the greatest geopolitical challenge the US will face over the next ten to twenty years. Granted most candidates haven't talked about it, but Trump mainly talks about China in terms of their currency manipulation (which is incorrect anyway - China actually is taking measures to prop up the RMB, not keep it undervalued, they know that if it falls too much then they'll face even more capital flight) or tariffs.

But what about China's aggression in the south China sea? What do we do if China tries to retake Taiwan? Alot of people are criticizing John Kasich for being a warmonger in Asia but are we really prepared to cede Asia to Chinese hegemony? How can Trump bring back our sense of pride if China is able to dominate Asia?

What about China's establishment of the AIIB (which is basically a big FU to the US led world financial order)?

Or the fact that Chinese exports, and increasingly Chinese tech exports, are competing with American products throughout all markets in the world?

They are now the largest trading partners of a good chunk of the world's countries and own lots of our debt (and are in the process of diversifying). They have tremendous leverage.

Even if we do tax the shit out of Chinese imports to the US, most manufacturers in China are increasingly focused on selling to the Chinese market or exporting to other developing countries

No one has really thought seriously about the rise of China and I'm curious to see how a nationalist/realist like Trump deals with them. For the last two Administrations we've had mainly a liberal attitude - trying to get Chinese to open up their markets but ignoring the fact that as China gets richer they funnel more money into their military and undermining US leadership in the world. We've always thought that as China gets more internationalized, they would become democratic and more like us. Hasn't happened though.

One of the most prominent realist scholars these days is John Mearsheimer (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/c...ully-10204) and many of his positions would probably align with Trump (skepticism of Israeli alliance, acknowledging that the West was somewhat at fault in Ukraine). Mearsheimer says that China is basically our enemy and we have to do all we can to prevent their rise in order to maintain US geopolitical advantage, even if it harms US growth in the short term. Will Trump take this position?

If so, it makes no sense for Trump to go after Japan on trade and paying for troops there - they are our principle partner in containing China.

He would also have to reconsider his opposition to TPP, which is partly designed to create favorable conditions for US exporters and exclude China from increasing trade ties with its neighbors.

On another note,

Do you guys think it's a smart move for Trump not to talk about his foreign policy inner circle? I don't see the harm in mentioning someone like Mearsheimer, or even talking about a scholar that he admires (like Samuel Huntington or any other scholar that's both respected but also challenges the neocons and SJWs). By naming some scholars, thinkers, or professionals that he listens to it will at least help people understand him a bit better. Or perhaps I'm wrong and it's all part of his strategy to get more attention and piss people off.

Post: #22

From the main Trump thread:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...?tid=sm_tw

"Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."

Trump sounded a similar note in discussing the U.S. presence in the Pacific. He questioned the value of massive military investments in Asia and wondered aloud whether the United States still was capable of being an effective peacekeeping force there."

Be sure to show this to anyone who thinks Trump is going to be getting us into another war. The one lazy, kneejerk reaction I hear about him that's close to be as annoying as the constant Hitler comparisons would be the silly claim that he's going to start World War 3.

Post: #23

Logically explaining to someone that Trump is not Hitler is a waste of breath. By coming to that conclusion they have already demonstrated themself to be an irrational human being. Logic and reason will not work on this person.

Post: #24

(03-21-2016 09:43 PM)Wutang Wrote:  From the main Trump thread:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...?tid=sm_tw

"Trump said that U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. "We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore," Trump said, adding later, "NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money."

Trump sounded a similar note in discussing the U.S. presence in the Pacific. He questioned the value of massive military investments in Asia and wondered aloud whether the United States still was capable of being an effective peacekeeping force there."

Be sure to show this to anyone who thinks Trump is going to be getting us into another war. The one lazy, kneejerk reaction I hear about him that's close to be as annoying as the constant Hitler comparisons would be the silly claim that he's going to start World War 3.

I would characterise those statements as not really being pacifist or isolationist, but rather more to do with forcing the US's allies to pay more of their share for the US's assistance. NATO in essence is the US Armed Forces, European Branch. It sounds like the 70 year US subsidy of the West's armed forces is about to be re-evaluated.

In one sense, this would be rather like the Mexican Wall: if you want the US protecting your welfare state, you're going to have to pay for the privilege.

Howver, I was wondering if indeed Trump's policy might cause military tensions to rise around the world, as follows. This is a Devil's Advocate line of reasoning, so please present arguments on this subject if I'm missing a link in the chain or something.

If the US were to go down the route of pulling back from Europe and Asia, I can foresee further Balkanisation of regional powers and a fair amount of re-arming across the world. Not having the US supporting them means individual countries have to start spending bigger proportions of their budgets on defence. Britain has to upgrade its airforce again. Germany (if it doesn't tear itself apart) has to increase the size of its military. Japan's "Self Defence" Force would probably be entirely relieved of its restrictions against China with a more isolationist US.

In this scenario, the Spratleys issue is likely to either be resolved by everyone rolling over to China or a regional dispute that could get bloody, since the threat of the US getting involved is about the only thing keeping China from wholesale going to town over there.

On one hand, this would generate some artificial economic activity across the world since all that money is getting spent, but it may well invite more regional conflicts. The one I worry about most is Poland: Germany and Russia have continually walked over it over the past four hundred years or so on the way to fight each other, and Poland is about the easternmost member of NATO. And to the Putin fans out there: Putin's not going to be around forever. What if he's replaced by someone even more hardline and expansionist?

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #25

Let's say Trump imposes a tariff on imported Chinese goods. Is there enough incentive for those offshored companies to return and set up shop in the States? For all they know, Trump could be a one term president and the US could be back to the same agreement as before after 4 years of Trump.

Is the American market that enticing to a company such as Apple that even with a lowered corporate tax rate, it would be worth coming back?