Donald Trump was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning (transcript here). George asked Trump about his tax plans, asking Trump why he says that fixing the economy is the most important thing and doing so would require raising taxes on the wealthy but that Trump’s economic plan involves a big tax cut for the wealthy. Trump’s response? His response? His proposal will include a tax cut for the wealthy but in negotiations with Congress this will turn into a tax increase for the wealthy. In other words, he doesn’t want to be the one to raise taxes on rich people, instead relying on Congress for that. (I kind of doubt that Congress is going to be more willing to do that than him, but that’s just my guess.)
None of this (and I’m not supporting Trump’s candidacy, btw) addresses the point I was making to truthSeeker2, which is that Lobohan’s admonition that the board’s purpose is to fight ignorance and to expect pushback for ignorant assertions is largely full of beans.
Take for example the post below, wherein I thoroughly debunk in another thread the widely spread assertion that Trump has made his money by screwing bondholders.
I’ve made many posts on this subject before and most of them have been met with crickets, just like this one, with the same accusations continuing to pop up over and over and over again with not a word of rebuke from anyone unless I happen upon it and have the time and inclination to challenge it.
There are a lot of smart and well-informed people on this board and I don’t believe for a minute that I’m the only one who knows these things, but here on this board supposedly devoted to fighting ignorance they all stand mute and let ignorance flourish because to do so serves their political purposes.
I wish there were more people having the attitude you showed in the bolded.
right. People here often do personal attacks on me. I am a thick skinned person, atleast on internet ;-), who doesn’t like to indulge in negative stuff. So I try to filter out the personal attacks and reply to anything relevant to the subject.
For people looking from afar the issue that you are complaining about is actually seen as having a bit of column A and a bit from column B:
Talking as if Trump only caused losses or that he was not smart in business is not accurate, but then talking also as if Trump is the picture of success and intelligence is also going over reality.
Of course, that is still just the past, to win just about half of the Republican voters and win the candidacy Trump had to go for ignorance and fear. His business acumen was not really much a factor but his previous experience in self aggrandizing.
Hmm. This may be the stupidest thing Trump has said. He doesn’t realize, if he really believes what he is advocating, that that would increase the cost of debt for practically everyone and for a long period of time.
If President Trump says a dumb thing like this, guess how many hundreds of points the Dow would drop that day. Do you understand why the Fed Chair is very careful with his or her words?
Saying something showing you have no clue about the economic system is a lot different from Obama’s 51 state gaffe. I challenge you to find one example where Obama or Clinton - or Romney to keep it bipartisan - said something this stupid.
“Google is your friend” typed into Babelfish comes out “I got nothing.”
The stock market tends to perform better in Democratic administrations for some reason. Lots of folks on Wall St do get it: Goldman Sachs alum include Senator/Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Robert Rubin.
Democrats offer Wall Streeters a deal. They say that in return for somewhat higher taxes they will get careful, rational, and wonkish policy. They get some takers.
But the GOP donor class extends beyond Wall St: much of it is among those involved in resource and fossil fuel extraction. It is somewhat less of a mystery why they haven’t bailed either, though it’s not like a 40 cent gas tax or the CO2 equivalent will mean the end of the oil industry.
)