Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
"WASHINGTON (Project Syndicate) — Donald Trump has finally put out a detailed economic plan. Authored by Peter Navarro (an economist at the University of California-Irvine) and Wilbur Ross (an investor), the plan claims that a President Trump would boost growth and reduce the national debt.
But its projections are based on assumptions so unrealistic that they seem to have come from a different planet. If the United States really did adopt Trump’s plan, the result would be an immediate and unmitigated disaster.
At the heart of the plan is a very large tax cut. The authors claim this would boost economic growth, despite the fact that similar cuts in the past (for example, under President George W. Bush) had no such effect. There is a lot of sensible evidence available on precisely this point, all of which is completely ignored."
Donald Trump’s economics are an unmitigated disaster - MarketWatch
"Donald Trump’s tax cuts would result in $6 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade, according to several independent analyses. His advisers disagree. They claim Mr. Trump’s entire program, including trade, regulation and energy, not just taxes, would generate so much growth there would be almost no increase in the deficit.
Their math doesn’t add up.
It rests on aggressive, tenuous or flawed assumptions: that deficits caused by tax cuts don’t raise interest rates; that removing regulations adds directly to gross domestic product; that oil and gas companies will rush to drill on newly opened federal land regardless of energy prices; and that protectionism expands the economy even if U.S. companies and workers are already working flat out."
Donald Trump’s Economic Plan, Up Close, Doesn’t Add Up - Real Time Economics - WSJ
"Economists think Hillary Clinton in the White House would be far better for U.S. businesses than Donald Trump.
In fact, economists pick Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as their second choice, according to a new survey from the National Association for Business Economics of over 400 experts. Trump comes in third.
"A majority (55%) choose Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, followed distantly by Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson (15%) and Republican nominee Donald Trump (14%)," says LaVaughn Henry of the NABE. "The remaining 15% said they 'don't know.'"
Clinton far better for economy than Trump, say business economists - Aug. 22, 2016
I stand corrected...
"Two economists who are supporting Trump are Lawrence Kudlow and Stephen Moore.
These guys are not the A-team among economists, but Moore seems moderately reputable. (Kudlow does not seem well-regarded.)"
Do any respected economists support Donald Trump? I cannot find a single one? How is this possible? - Quora
"The reason that one can’t find any respected economists that support Donald Trump’s economic proposals is because he is wrong.
Free trade is generally considered a good thing, but Donald has proposed raising tariffs on imported goods from certain countries — not so good. Higher tariffs will not create new jobs in the USA.
Trump’s tax plan is wrong.
|
Hmm, they sure got Obama's plan wrong, didn't they?
We have a choice between Obama's plan which Hillary want's to double down on. A plan that has failed.
Or,
We can try Trump's plan which I would suggest is more apt to create real private sector jobs. Since Trump has created thousands of private sectors jobs and Hillary has created NONE, I would put more credence on Trump's ideas than Hillary's. You liberals seem to think that experience is the way to go and want to vote for Hillary, even though her experience is bad and failed. Well, when it comes to creating jobs, I reckon that Trump has the experience and has done it successfully.
Your vote is your choice. But, at least be honest about it. You are voting for her because she will be the first female in the office. And you are voting for her because she is in the Democrat party. Otherwise, you have no valid or justifiable reason to vote for her. I get it. But, do you?