A quick Google search tells me that 46.4% of Americans workers work for “small businesses”, so it seems like an important source of income for a lot of people.
Do we need more? I dunno what the optimal balance is between large and small employers.
Having worked for both large and small employers, there are certainly (different) advantages to both.
Also, small business is where many large organizations started, so it is good to keep growing new ones in the pipeline, especially if we want to keep America competitive. It is always fascinating to watch videos like the one in the link where the top companies change over time:
Don’t almost all business start as small business? I mean Apple had a handful of employees when they working out of a garage.
Trump is proposing that the US should set up a sovereign fund. My involvement with such funds is that they usually receive excesses of government revenues over expenditures which makes the idea a non-starter given the current US federal fiscal situation.
Trump is proposing that the sovereign fund be funded from the import tariffs that “other countries will be paying the US.” I wish he would get attacked more on the issue of who actually pays such tariffs as they will end up being a de facto consumption tax levied on American consumers. Higher taxes are a no-go area for conservatives, usually.
A sovereign wealth fund could invest in key US businesses, especially those owned by the Trump family.
Trump wants to put Elon Musk in charge of a new government efficiency commission, specifically praising him as the “greatest cutter of jobs” and putting Musk in charge of rules that affect his own businesses and wealth.
I haven’t seen any explanation from him how this new duplication of an efficiency commission makes sense given the GAO.
Dick Cheney is voting for Harris, per his daughter. Of course Liz already endorsed Harris.
Crazy how much the GOP has pivoted that even Cheney is out.
The duplication makes things twice as efficient?
It’s even worse than depicted in this graphic, largely due to the “sanewashing” of Trump’s remarks by the media. He’ll make some rambling incoherent speech jumping from topic to topic, and the media will sanitize it into some sort of somewhat logical sounding policy proposal.
Nate Silver’s latest run:
While his model still is assuming Harris’ polling results are a little inflated due to convention bounce, Nate notes that Trump has been doing better in the polls recently, including the big NYT poll (the first big post-Labor Day poll) showing Trump up by 1.
Ok who we subbing in now?
Yup, honeymoon feels like it is over. Many people say they need to learn more about Harris, so the debate tomorrow will be important.
This was always going to be the case really.
Independents will make up their minds based on what they see at the debate.
8 weeks to go, who knows what will all happen. We have had three big events in the last 8.
Reshma Saujani:
President Trump, you talked about how the increase in the price of food, gas and rent is hurting families, but the real cost that’s breaking families’ backs and preventing women from participating in the workforce is child care[…] If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?
Donald Trump:
Well, I would do that. And we’re sitting down – you know, I was somebody – we had – Sen. Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka were so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that – because, look, 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.
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 – 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 say 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 – 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.
In the most charitable translation: “We’ll slap huge tariffs on imports, increasing the price of goods and pulling so much money from American pockets that it will pay for childcare, too.”
It hurts me to my core that he gets away with claiming foreigners pay the tariff
Econ 101 has the seller receiving less per unit and a lower volume, so they cover the cost for part of it, although the actual transaction is money from the buyer to the government.
In no way is Trump thinking that of course.
Also, any discussion about the illogic of tariffs can be deflected by Team Trump by observing, “the Biden/Harris administration left the Trump tariffs in place”.
