Saturday, October 22, 2016

final debate with 3rd party responses, pt 3, economy, trade, and experience

This is part three of the final debate that occurred 10/19 at the University of Nevada. I have included 3rd party responses posted live during the debate via twitter, as well as some fact checks and commentary from me. In this segment they discuss economic policy, trade, and experience.






3rd Party responses on the economy and Trade:









Commentary and fact checks:

First, neither candidates plan is all that great, both will increase spending, and both will grow the national debt. Neither addresses out of control entitlement spending, and neither is really willing to take any action on military spending or on pork projects. The phrase rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic comes to mind. Here is an analysis of each candidates tax plans from the tax foundation. Evan McMullin shared a graphic above, also from the tax foundation, this is a more detailed breakdown. Basically, Trump will cut taxes, Hillary will raise taxes, but primarily on "higher earners". Neither plan really addresses actual tax reform, just adds some tweaks to the already complex tax code we currently have. As the tax foundation breakdown states, we must also consider these plans in conjunction with other policies, such as trade. For Trumps plan to be even the marginally successful numbers estimated in this review, it relies on an open economy and trade, however, as Trump has made clear, he will pursue the opposite. It's also worth noting that neither candidate has shown any intention of addressing the growing debt or reducing spending. Also of note, Johnson would completely rewrite the tax code, simplify it, remove the IRS, and implement either a consumption tax or a flat tax. McMullin also mentions addressing and simplifying the tax code drastically, as he links above. Castle would drastically change the tax environment (select tax policy) as well, proposing that the states fund the federal government and each state tax (or not) as they need to. Jill Stein mentions a "green new deal", but from the looks of it, her plan will drastically increase taxes and spending. Unfortunately, none of these other views were mentioned in the debate, and two very important issues are left untouched, actually reforming or replacing the tax code, and addressing out of control spending.

As both Johnson and Castle point out, regarding Clinton's statement to help small business and raise the minimum wage, these two are not really compatible. Here's an interesting and accurate take on the minimum wage discussion from 1960. 

Essentially, Hillary's plan increases spending,increases regulation, will raise the cost of education, and increases taxes. Here is a look at Bernie's college plan, which Hillary's is based off of.

Now, Trump talks a good game on cutting taxes, but still won't touch entitlement spending, adds to government spending, and seem intent on making up the difference by restricting trade and starting trade wars, which actually harms the economy. As Cato put's it, Trump's plan is "deserving ridicule".

Basically, the two are arguing about who should be taxed less or more, without addressing spending, both growing the debt, and neither actually seeking to reform the tax code. On the economy, both candidates are terrible, and we the people would have been better served to actually hear some alternate ideas.

Both candidates are arguing about who will protect the economy more, but neither candidate has addressed or seems to understand the benefits of free trade and the importance of trade on the economy.

Essentially, for the economy and trade portion of the debate, we see two candidates who are quibbling over two plans that will grow the debt, grow spending, and not really fix taxes, while Johnson would have interjected discussion on actually fixing the tax code, free trade, and cutting spending, as to a degree would McMullin, Castle would be going further to the right of Trump on protectionism, but would have interjected some interesting views on taxes and spending, and Stein would have gone to the left of Clinton, but would have again interjected an interesting debate on free trade, and it is too bad that we are limited to these two voices who, overall, neither has a good plan, and who, in view of substance and results, don't differ all that much in the end.

I will give Trump credit for pointing out one thing, Hillary has been in positions of impact for decades, and her plans haven't been good ones. However, that doesn't make his terrible plans good either.

Trump has been mentioning the "lost $6 Billion" However, this is an inaccurate statement. While it is concerning regarding the bureaucracy of the state department and trouble properly keeping track of paperwork, reality seems to show that no actually money was "lost". Cause for concern? yes, but not the inaccurate way Trump is spinning it.

Finally, on experience, Johnson is a two term governor of New Mexico, with a proven record of reducing government and cutting spending. McMullin has extensive foreign policy experience.

This segment was a display of bad economic policy, misinformation, and pandering to emotion.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)