Who is better for the future of dentistry: Trump or Hillary?

[Afualo12]

I'd say Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Cold Front]

I would say me.

 

[deleted678432]

Trump


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[distressstudent]

https://www.reddit.com/r/medicalschool/comments/4co5ok/trumps_opinion_of_doctors/

That said... still Trump

 

[Panis et Circenses]

Trump, I feel he could actually help out the economy. Same ol' with Hillary. Better economy = better for dentists.

 

[rev_rend]

It really depends on what you mean by better, the kind of practice you're talking about, and what you think is good for dentistry as a whole.

If you think that what's good for dentistry involves more people seeing dentists and improved oral health outcomes in all populations, it's really hard to see how Trump is better. His health care policy proposals, to the extent they exist, cost more and decrease coverage.

This matters a lot to the big picture economics of dentistry. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not the ACA has anything worth salvaging. Notably, it doesn't consider dentistry essential on the private market. But it has expanded Medicaid dental benefits in many states. In a stagnant market, Medicaid is the one big growth sector for dentistry. (More on that here, including the observation that declines in dental care consumption seem to have little to do with a poor economy.)

Again, reasonable people can disagree, and a lot of that disagreement will come down to how policy affects individual practices or practice models. But the findings of the ADA's Chief Economist (who speaks on his own behalf on these matters) strongly suggest that continuing down the road on which we've started is a good thing, and that even if you take on faith that Trump will boost the economy, it won't lead to increased consumption of dentistry.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

even if you take on faith that Trump will boost the economy, it won't lead to increased consumption of dentistry.

Seriously? No. Better economy means more money in the pockets of consumers. Dental work they have put off during the recession will be more attainable.

http://www.dentaleconomics.com/arti...ys-the-new-economy-has-changed-dentistry.html

 

[rev_rend]

Seriously? No. Better economy means more money in the pockets of consumers. Dental work they have put off during the recession will be more attainable.

The recession ended a while ago. That hasn't led to increased spending on dentistry or recovering incomes for dentists: http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science and Research/HPI/Files/HPIBrief_1214_1.ashx & http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science and Research/HPI/Files/HPIBrief_1215_2.pdf?la=en

There are plenty of possible explanations for this. But clearly none of them are that a non-specifically "better" economy translates into more spending on dentistry.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

The recession ended a while ago. That hasn't led to increased spending on dentistry or recovering incomes for dentists: http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science and Research/HPI/Files/HPIBrief_1214_1.ashx & http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science and Research/HPI/Files/HPIBrief_1215_2.pdf?la=en

There are plenty of possible explanations for this. But clearly none of them are that a non-specifically "better" economy translates into more spending on dentistry.

We're in the worst recovery since WWII, that's probably why. The economy is still pretty bad.

 

[rev_rend]

We're in the worst recovery since WWII, that's probably why. The economy is still pretty bad.

We can move the goalposts all day. But dig into the evidence on the dental economy. We can't take on faith that highly simplified macroeconomic models drive individuals' spending on dental care. It's a way more complicated picture than the unemployment rate and economic growth. But we have real data we can look at to identify real trends and knowledge gaps in dental economics.

That's why I said above that what is "better for the future of dentistry" depends a lot on what you want or expect the future of dentistry to look like.

 

[Daurang]

I honestly have no idea. The economic recovery is mostly fake based on $15 trillion in monopoly money. the stock market is artificially fake due the near zero rate. Obozo promised I'd save $2500 on my health insurance and I'm still waiting until eternity. It has gone up $2500 instead and with less coverage and huge deductible. It's great more people have health insurance but deductible so ridiculous they don't really have health care. With more insurance companies going out of business, I guess that's bad for consumers...and that applies to dental too.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

I honestly have no idea. The economic recovery is mostly fake based on $15 trillion in monopoly money. the stock market is artificially fake due the near zero rate. Obozo promised I'd save $2500 on my health insurance and I'm still waitingun til eternity It has gone up $2500 instead and with less coverage and huge deductible. It great more people have health insurance but deductible so ridiculous more people don't really have heal care. With more insurance companies going out of business, I guess that's bad for consumers...dental too.

Exactly. Obama's plan to get out of the recession was to print more money. Lol. Now we double of what our national debt was when George W. left office. Yippee.

 

[fa_tth]

We can move the goalposts all day. But dig into the evidence on the dental economy. We can't take on faith that highly simplified macroeconomic models drive individuals' spending on dental care. It's a way more complicated picture than the unemployment rate and economic growth. But we have real data we can look at to identify real trends and knowledge gaps in dental economics.

That's why I said above that what is "better for the future of dentistry" depends a lot on what you want or expect the future of dentistry to look like.

I wouldn't call this a goalpost shift. The 'recovery' as others have mentioned is dubious at best. I agree there is more to the equation than simply improving the economy but it's hard to argue that if we don't see a boost in this countries' middle class, it won't matter how well the patient population get educated about the importance of dental care if they don't have the money to act on that knowledge.

 

[DrJeff]

Who ever gets more of the mid 20's through mid 50's age demographic back into our offices seeking treatment is who you want to win the election. ADA demographics show that while in gross dollars spent on dental care, the number annually has pretty much recovered after the financial crisis 8 or so years ago, it has come with gains in treatment dollars on the young and the old, but the mid 20's to mid 50's (what one used to formally without question consider to be the "working age" demographic hasn't recovered and has actually decreased in gross dollars spent.

Frankly, for most dentists, that was/is our "bread and butter" demographic where we made a significant amount of our gross revenue off of either some elective procedures (usually cosmetic based) or what tends to be "easy", high return procedures such as single unit endo and crown work.


I've seen this first hand in my own practice where I'm doing a heck of a lot more pedo and geriatric cases than I used to, and am hearing more and more of the "working age" demographic either not seek treatment or defer treatment due to their stagnant to sometimes decreased household incomes these last 8 or so years. Add in what all too often is the reality of having to pay more for insurance to find out they have a deductable now that is far greater than what they had before, and the reality is that many are spending money to pay both for their insurance plans and their deductables that they used to spend on actual treatment.

Sec Clinton has said that she wants to keep and build upon the Affordable Care Act. Mr Trump has said that he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Frankly from the perspective of what I see in my own office, the business and practice of dentistry, both from the dentists side and patient satisfaction side were "better" before the Affordable Care Act was implemented.

 

[Cello]

Trump, I feel he could actually help out the economy. Same ol' with Hillary. Better economy = better for dentists.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/14/news/economy/donald-trump-economic-plan-1-trillion/

Economists disagree with you. Hillary's proposals are expected to cost around $200 billion to Trump's $5+ trillion. We can't afford a repeat of G.W. Bush.

 

[Cello]

I wouldn't call this a goalpost shift. The 'recovery' as others have mentioned is dubious at best. I agree there is more to the equation than simply improving the economy but it's hard to argue that if we don't see a boost in this countries' middle class, it won't matter how well the patient population get educated about the importance of dental care if they don't have the money to act on that knowledge.

I still remember what it was like to turn on the radio every day and hear the ever increasing count of banking closures which numbered in the hundreds. I remember the endless stream of stories about underwater mortgages and neighbors who rallied to fend off police serving eviction notices. I remember what it was like trying to find a job when 70 and 80 applicants applied for the same one I did. I remember what it was like working a labor job after college while my friends moved in with their parents. The economy today is nothing like it was then.

Exactly. Obama's plan to get out of the recession was to print more money. Lol. Now we double of what our national debt was when George W. left office. Yippee.

This is completely misinformed post. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law, not Obama. The TARP bank bailouts amounted to trillions of dollars which benefited banks. Obama provided a tax stimulus to middle-income earners in the amount of $600 if I recall correctly. At least assign blame correctly. Bush printed money for banks through the Fed. Obama credited Americans' hard earned money back to them to stimulate consumer spending.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

This is completely misinformed post. Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law, not Obama. The TARP bank bailouts amounted to trillions of dollars which benefited banks. Obama provided a tax stimulus to middle-income earners in the amount of $600 if I recall correctly. At least assign blame correctly. Bush printed money for banks through the Fed. Obama credited Americans' hard earned money back to them to stimulate consumer spending.

You sure do love to project your opinions on to other people.
2009 - Obama takes office. 10.63 trillion in debt.
2016- As of September (months before Obama leaves office) - 19.5 trillion in debt.

Nearly double. Inform yourself before calling others uninformed.

 

[Cello]

You sure do love to project your opinions on to other people.

even if you take on faith that Trump will boost the economy, it won't lead to increased consumption of dentistry.

Seriously? No. Better economy means more money in the pockets of consumers.

Is it the same @Panis et Circenses in both posts, or did I miss something?

2009 - Obama takes office. 10.63 trillion in debt.
2016- As of September (months before Obama leaves office) - 19.5 trillion in debt.

I am so happy you brought this gross oversimplification up.

You see, when Bush left office he signed a record deficit $1.4 trillion budget bill for FY2009. But thanks Obama!

Under Obama, the deficit which Bush left on his doorstep was reduced steadily and significantly (over 2/3 through this year).

2009 $1413 Billion Deficit

2010 $1294 Billion Deficit

2011 $1299 Billion Deficit

2012 $1100 Billion Deficit

2013 $680 Billion Deficit

2014 $485 Billion Deficit

2015 $438 Billion Deficit

A trend emerges, does it not?

Only two presidents have managed to reduce the deficit in the last 50 years, the other being Clinton who left office with a $240 billion surplus after being handed a $290 billion deficit.

Nearly double. Inform yourself before calling others uninformed.

Shall we continue to eviscerate your gross oversimplification a little further? Here, have an analogy

1. @Panis et Circenses has $10,000 in debt and a net income of -$1,413 one year
2. Panis dies and leaves the debt to his/her next of kin Shirley
3. Shirley is saddled with Panis' now $11,413 in debt and -$1,413 net income
4. She manages to reduce the income deficit from -$1,413 to -$438 dollars over time
5. Everyone blames Shirley for mismanaging her finances.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

Is it the same @Panis et Circenses in both posts, or did I miss something?



I am so happy you brought this gross oversimplification up.

You see, when Bush left office he signed a record deficit $1.4 trillion budget bill for FY2009. But thanks Obama!

Under Obama, the deficit which Bush left on his doorstep was reduced steadily and significantly (over 2/3 through this year).

2009 $1413 Billion Deficit

2010 $1294 Billion Deficit

2011 $1299 Billion Deficit

2012 $1100 Billion Deficit

2013 $680 Billion Deficit

2014 $485 Billion Deficit

2015 $438 Billion Deficit

A trend emerges, does it not?

Only two presidents have managed to reduce the deficit in the last 50 years, the other being Clinton who left office with a $240 billion surplus after being handed a $290 billion deficit.



Shall we continue to eviscerate your gross oversimplification a little further? Here, have an analogy

1. @Panis et Circenses has $10,000 in debt and a net income of -$1,413 one year
2. Panis dies and leaves the debt to his/her next of kin Shirley
3. Shirley is saddled with Panis' now $11,413 in debt and -$1,413 net income
4. She manages to reduce the income deficit from -$1,413 to -$438 dollars over time
5. Everyone blames Shirley for mismanaging her finances.

Again. Blame it on Bush, classic.
You are wrong again, don't let your political bias get in the way of facts.
National debt was 10.6 trillion when he entered office.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

 

[Cello]

Again. Blame it on Bush, classic.
You are wrong again, don't let your political bias get in the way of facts.
National debt was 10.6 trillion when he entered office.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

Budget for FY2009 was signed by Bush, $1.413 trillion shortfall, not part of the debt until the money is spent. Nice try.

Did you skip my analogy? You can blame Shirley all you like, but there are those of us who have been paying attention.

 

[Panis et Circenses]

Budget for FY2009 was signed by Bush, $1.413 trillion shortfall, not part of the debt until the money is spent. Nice try.

Did you skip my analogy? You can blame Shirley all you like, but there are those of us who have been paying attention.

FYI I'm an independent and not a conservative. But I think it's pretty hilarious how you liberals go to such radical extremes to try to defend Obama and the unfavorable status quo. I'm not replying to this message any further. I'd rather agree to disagree, and still be friends lol.

 

[Cello]

FYI I'm an independent and not a conservative. But I think it's pretty hilarious how you liberals go to such radical extremes to try to defend Obama and the unfavorable status quo. I'm not replying to this message any further. I'd rather agree to disagree, and still be friends lol.

Since you insist on blaming Obama for the mess he inherited (how non-partisan of you), let's have some fun.

Bush signed the record budget deficit which Obama inherited his first year in office. Old news by now, right?

Of course that fails to take into account the cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which began under Bush in 2001 and 2003. That amounts to roughly $4 trillion which was not budgeted for.

So, Obama inherited 2 wars which were fought on the national credit card. But I get it, that was totally his fault. Thanks Obama!

What are we up to now, an inherited $1.4 trillion from Bush's FY2009 budget and $4 trillion for two wars, that adds up to $5.4 trillion. So, from the nearly $20 trillion national debt today, $5.4 trillion was from the 2 current wars and the FY2009 budget deficit (thanks TARP). In other words, those $5.4 trillion had nothing to do with Obama. I am not even taking lost revenue (and thus taxes) from the recession which began under Bush into account. The cost of the recession was estimated at $22 trillion, so just imagine how much tax base the government missed out on that could have been put towards the national debt.

 

[Cello]

Debt has doubled in Obama's 2 terms whether you like it or not. Bush was a spender and Obama continued it. With regards to which candidate will be better for dentistry, I'd say Trump.

I often ignore entire posts and skim to respond too. There was going to be a massive debt increase no matter who took office thanks to the massive deficit left behind from FY09 and the recession of '08.

For everyone making the argument that Trump will be better for you as healthcare practitioners because he will repeal Obamacare:



Oh he'll repeal Obamacare alright!

 

[Cello]

Despite your smug accusation, I in fact read the entire thread and the fact remains, whether you like it or not, the debt doubled in Obama's 8 years. Fact. I didn't say because of who and why, I just stated a fact.

Nothing smug about a drive-by post though, right?

That subject was sufficiently addressed and you added nothing new to the conversation except your own personal affirmation of a previously stated argument.

Here's his healthcare policy instead of an off the cuff interview video:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/POSITIONS/HEALTHCARE-REFORM

His healthcare policy which was designed to lure GOP voters with a familiar healthcare platform after he explicitly stated in a televised interview (which was not at all off the cuff as his supporters have grown fond of saying whenever he misspeaks) that he would go with a universal healthcare model.

I would love to see as detailed a response for why Donald Trump is the better candidate as I have given for why he is not.

 

[Cello]

Ok, I am not understanding your logic. Can you please walk me through a few things.
1) What was my initial "argument"?

You did not have an argument which was not already presented by another poster.

2) Was my initial post an argument or a fact and why?

It was a drive-by affirmation of a previously stated argument which was sufficiently rebutted in previous posts.

3) Walk me through the logic that explains that the national debt did not double (if we are being technical, it more than doubled) during Obama's 8 years in office.

No one made such an argument.

4) Why should I believe your perception of Trump's healthcare plan over mine?

Because Donald Trump said it himself. As in his actual mouth formed the actual words which were recorded on an actual camera. Unless you don't believe the words which come out of his mouth. Honestly I would not blame you for that, but then I wonder why you trust anything that comes from his campaign at all.


I would love to see as detailed a response for why Donald Trump is the better candidate as I have given for why he is not.

 

[Cello]

1) That's because I never said anything arguable. It's a fact that the debt more than doubled in Obama's 8 years, yet your hallucination of my post prevents you from understanding the difference between a fact and an argument.

You parroted another poster. What exactly was your intention?

3) The entire reason why you're posting now is because you're upset by the fact that my statement is true, yet it seems to place the entire blame on Obama when it is not technically all his fault as evidenced by Bush's budget signings. Regardless, my statement is still a fact that deeply upsets you.

I find it interesting that folks supporting Trump so often assume that anyone who argues with them must be upset. Some of us just enjoy debating politics and can do so unemotionally.

4) You haven't convinced me to support your perception of Trump's healthcare policy. The fact of the matter is, no one knows what policy Trump would put in place if elected because there are numerous variables that affect how a president governs. We can only do best with the detailed information we have at hand. In my opinion, his plan is better than Hillary's

And you aren't the least bit concerned at how frequently he says one thing and then says the complete opposite a short time later?

There's no reason in giving you a detailed response on why Trump would be a better candidate because you have no interest in switching your support from a Democrat to him. No amount of cold hard facts would change your mind about him, so why bother?

Because it is a perfectly valid question which I have yet to see sufficiently answered by any of his supporters. They have reasons they don't like Hillary and sufficient feats of mental gymnastics to justify even his most outlandish statements but I have yet to see a compelling reason to vote for the man. If you can't answer either then I can't say that I'm surprised.

I will happily respond to the link you posted from Trump's health policy earlier.

Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

So Trump is advocating for more of the same. Uninsured patients who wait too long to be seen and end up in the ER with preventable ailments and a $15,000 bill which gets handed off to taxpayers when the patient fails to pay. We tried that system, it was leading to 7-8% premium increases year over year. Say what you want about Obamacare, but it is the first time in years that premium rises have been significantly reduced.

Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.

The ACA already has provisions to encourage inter-state and regional health insurance sales and insurers largely ignored them. This is because the costs of doing business are not regulatory, they are financial in nature. Forming relationships with physicians, forming networks, that is prohibitively expensive for insurers and it is difficult to enter markets where existing insurers are dominant. In fact, several states did pass laws to allow for out-of-state insurance sales and not a single out-of-state insurer took them up on it. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2012/rwjf401409

Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.

Sounds nice. I have not yet heard about a state medicaid program that a single practitioner is happy to work with. Perhaps somebody somewhere actually prefers taking medicaid patients?

Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

You can already do most of this. I don't know the details on passing HSAs on to your heirs, but if HSAs are limitless and exempt from taxes at death then I suspect that a new loophole would be formed.

Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

From Hillary's site:

• Protect consumers from unjustified prescription drug price increases from companies that market long-standing, life-saving treatments and face little or no competition. Hillary’s plan includes new enforcement tools that make drug alternatives available and increase competition, broaden emergency access to high-quality treatments from developed countries with strong safety standards, and hold drug companies accountable for unjustified price increases with new penalties. Read more here

Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.

From Hillary's site:

• Fight for health insurance for the lowest-income Americans in every state by incentivizing states to expand Medicaid

But anyone who works in healthcare knows that medicaid is a complete disaster and that states have proven that they are terrible at managing their own healthcare systems. How many dentists take medicaid?

Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

Remove barriers to entry? Such as...? Clinical trials? I am all for reducing the cost of drugs, but it would be nice to get a more specific plan. Maybe allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharma the way they do with physicians? Do like they do in England and prevent docs from prescribing new expensive drugs when old generic drugs are proven to be as effective? There are many things that can certainly be done, it would be nice if the language here was more specific.

 

[Cello]

My intention was to state a fact to invoke an emotional response out of you. It worked pretty darn well

Nope. But maybe you should see what the TOS has to say about trolling.

 

[bman111]

I'd say Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[fa_tth]

Nope. But maybe you should see what the TOS has to say about trolling.

You kinda trolled yourself mate.

 

[Cold Front]

After the past 24 hours, Trump's campaign is waiving a big white flag.

8 years of Hillary reign.

 

[Incis0r]

After the past 24 hours, Trump's campaign is waiving a big white flag.

8 years of Hillary reign.

Genuine question- do you really think his most recent...comments...are going to derail his campaign?

 

[Cello]

You kinda trolled yourself mate.

By directly responding to other posters' arguments, or by providing supporting arguments for my own?

A poster stating that the only reason they entered the thread was to "invoke an emotional response out of [another poster]" is the very definition of trolling.

PS - Assumptions about the emotional state of someone behind the keyboard are usually unreliable. But if the poster above chooses to believe they have rattled me for some reason and that makes them happy, then that's fine and I hope they are all the merrier for it.

For my part, I simply enjoy arguing. If you don't believe me, have a look back through my post history. I don't attempt to elicit an emotional response (read: I am not a troll) but I do try to get people to support their assertions if at all possible. Failing this, there is little reason to continue debating with a pull-string voter.

Genuine question- do you really think his most recent...comments...are going to derail his campaign?

I think that this may be the fatal blow with only 1 month to go before the election. What concerns me is the fact that it took this scandal to elicit widespread condemnation of his behavior from within his own party. How many lines have been crossed already? It is disturbing to say the least.

 

[Incis0r]

Let's all make peace and eat some food.

In response to the topic, I think that lower taxes on ALL businesses (and lower income taxes), the elimination of additional expenses like the medical device tax, policies that lead to a decrease in tuition/student loans, and fewer restrictions on employers are the way to prosperity for the practice owner, and consequently, for his/her team.

 

[Cello]

Let's all make peace and eat some food.

In response to the topic, I think that lower taxes on ALL businesses (and lower income taxes), the elimination of additional expenses like the medical device tax, policies that lead to a decrease in tuition/student loans, and fewer restrictions on employers are the way to prosperity for the practice owner, and consequently, for his/her team.

Not charging 5% / 6% interest on student loans from the government would be a great start wouldn't it? Studies show that a professional education returns many times the loan amount in tax revenue over the career of the professional. So they should be encouraging us to seek a professional education and start a business, not discouraging us with loan rates intended to attract student loan servicers (as if they don't have enough incentive already). What business does our government have profiting off of us and our student loans?

Lowering taxes would be great, but would require more efficient government which I'm sure most people would be onboard with. The question is, how?

Restrictions can be a good thing, like states where practice owners must be a licensed dentist. I think that keeps moneyed interests out of our profession and ensures that anyone owning a practice must also have an ethical, legal, professional, and monetary stake in the business. Right now it's too easy in some states for outsiders with deep pockets to open corporate chains and pressure their providers to perform unethical treatment. They have no skin to lose, only the doctor does. But if the doctor refuses, they may be out a job. With the burden of student loans hanging over them like the sword of Damocles, these providers are between a rock and a hard place. The owner of the practice may reap much or most of the financial reward while placing much of the professional burden on their employed providers.

 

[Cold Front]

Genuine question- do you really think his most recent...comments...are going to derail his campaign?

Honestly, I would say 50/50.

The news cycle in this country is hours/days, so with 2 debates left, 30 days is a long time in elections. There could be a major incident in economy, national security, international affairs (look at Syria and Russia situation), and even more dirt from the past for each candidate that could come to light. American audience and voters have short term memory. If election was held today or next week, then Hillary would have it in the bag. But Trump is the king of Twitter, he will deflect negative attention from himself. Hillary emails must be keeping her awake at night, not so much what she could be hiding, but how those emails could be spinned by media and Trump.

Who knows... at this point, both candidates better pray something big doesn't happen closer to the Election Day. That's my take.

 

[schmoob]

Not charging 5% / 6% interest on student loans from the government would be a great start wouldn't it? Studies show that a professional education returns many times the loan amount in tax revenue over the career of the professional. So they should be encouraging us to seek a professional education and start a business, not discouraging us with loan rates intended to attract student loan servicers (as if they don't have enough incentive already). What business does our government have profiting off of us and our student loans?

What percentage would you suggest? And if the government is not receiving any sort of profit or returns, wouldn't that just add to the deficit?

 

[GypsyHummus]

Honestly, I would say 50/50.

The news cycle in this country is hours/days, so with 2 debates left, 30 days is a long time in elections. There could be a major incident in economy, national security, international affairs (look at Syria and Russia situation), and even more dirt from the past for each candidate that could come to light. American audience and voters have short term memory. If election was held today or next week, then Hillary would have it in the bag. But Trump is the king of Twitter, he will deflect negative attention from himself. Hillary emails must be keeping her awake at night, not so much what she could be hiding, but how those emails could be spinned by media and Trump.

Who knows... at this point, both candidates better pray something big doesn't happen closer to the Election Day. That's my take.

Dat Wikileaks doe

 

[Mad Jack]

Given that dentistry typically falls outside the purview of health care reform, and that Trump will likely turn the Earth into a smoldering crater-riddled wasteland, I'd say Hillary.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Given that dentistry typically falls outside the purview of health care reform, and that Trump will likely turn the Earth into a smoldering crater-riddled wasteland, I'd say Hillary.

Oh come on, Trump won't be that bad. I actually think he could get the economy back up and running.

 

[Mad Jack]

Oh come on, Trump won't be that bad. I actually think he could get the economy back up and running.

I actually think he's too stupid to not use nuclear weapons. He asked why we couldn't for ****'s sake, and had no idea what the nuclear triad was. That isn't a man you want in sole control of our nuclear arsenal.

 

[GypsyHummus]

I actually think he's too stupid to not use nuclear weapons. He asked why we couldn't for ****'s sake, and had no idea what the nuclear triad was. That isn't a man you want in sole control of our nuclear arsenal.

If you think she who must not be named will have any better of a temperament as far as nuclear weapons goes, I think you should do a bit more research. Its like she wants a war with Russia.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you think she who must not be named will have any better of a temperament as far as nuclear weapons goes, I think you should do a bit more research. Its like she wants a war with Russia.

Clinton is all about war, but of the proxy variety. She's too practical for direct confrontation and always has been.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Clinton is all about war, but of the proxy variety. She's too practical for direct confrontation and always has been.

Its too bad there isn't another candidate besides Allepo guy.

I would have really liked Rand Paul.

 

[Daurang]

I'm no fan of Trump and will not vote for the first time ever cause our country is screwed with either one of them.

However, it's under Hillary's reset with Russia that we're now on the brink of nuclear war with them plus ISIS is running amok over the world. Go ahead...blame it on all Bush too.

 

[Blake1e]

Def Trump. A richer nation makes everyone including us dentists better off.

Hillary seems set to continue the trends of eliminating the middle class and bring everyone but the hyper rich down at least a few levels. More taxes, more government, more regulations, more war, suffering etc etc

Another great depression is set to come. 20 trillion in debt and she doesnt seem to care. Trump seems genuine in his intent to somehow prevent this and if someone could do it he has the best chances due to his experiences. Guinness Book of Records says he holds the record for the biggest financial turnaround in history, from a billion in debt in 1995 to $10 billion today.

 

[fa_tth]

I actually think he's too stupid to not use nuclear weapons. He asked why we couldn't for ****'s sake, and had no idea what the nuclear triad was. That isn't a man you want in sole control of our nuclear arsenal.

So you'd rather vote for arguably one of the most corrupted individuals to have ever run for POTUS? I'm not saying Trump is a stellar candidate, but Hillary is a living mockery of everything our country once stood for. TBH, we're screwed either way.

 

[Mad Jack]

So you'd rather vote for arguably one of the most corrupted individuals to have ever run for POTUS? I'm not saying Trump is a stellar candidate, but Hillary is a living mockery of everything our country once stood for. TBH, we're screwed either way.

They're both awful. Hillary just won't burn the world down most likely, while Trump will undoubtedly cause serious problems for us geopolitically.

 

[fa_tth]

They're both awful. Hillary just won't burn the world down most likely, while Trump will undoubtedly cause serious problems for us geopolitically.

I guess I just don't buy that Trump will destroy everything. He'll probably be a piss poor president but a step in the right direction by taking the presidency out of the 'establishments' hands.

 

[Cello]

I guess I just don't buy that Trump will destroy everything. He'll probably be a piss poor president but a step in the right direction by taking the presidency out of the 'establishments' hands.

Donald Trump is the establishment. This is a man who has lined the pockets of politicians on both sides of the aisle, has lobbied hard for tax breaks which benefit him, and taken advantage of every loophole available to him.

He said it himself, he believes that his fiduciary duty as a business owner is to pay as little in taxes as possible. Why do you expect that to change when he is president? If anything, it will be the fox guarding the henhouse. I would expect him to push for further legislation which benefits him and others like him which is not you or me. His tax proposals already disproportionately reward the wealthiest Americans, particular the billionaire class to which he belongs.

He plans to cut taxes by, I think he said 28% in the last debate, while simultaneously increasing military spending. It doesn't take a genius to wonder what programs will suffer so he can burn the candle at both ends. Medicare? Social Security? He is planning to cut federal revenue by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, so how exactly will he pay down the national debt while increasing military spending? It simply does not add up. Are YOU in the habit of spending more while making less in the hopes that your debt will somehow magically decrease?

You have a man who reportedly asked three times during a security brief why we can't just use nuclear weapons. The use of a single nuclear warhead would likely mean the end of the world, so @Mad Jack may not be far off with his assessment.

 

[fa_tth]

Donald Trump is the establishment. This is a man who has lined the pockets of politicians on both sides of the aisle, has lobbied hard for tax breaks which benefit him, and taken advantage of every loophole available to him.

He said it himself, his fiduciary duty as a business owner is to pay as little in taxes as possible. Why do you expect that to change when he is president? If anything, it will be the fox guarding the henhouse. I would expect him to push for further legislation which benefits him and others like him which is not you or me. His tax proposals already disproportionately reward the wealthiest Americans, particular the billionaire class to which he belongs. He plans to cut taxes by 28% he said in the last debate, while simultaneously increasing military spending. It doesn't take a genius to wonder what programs will suffer so he can burn the candle at both ends. Medicare? Social Security?

You have a man who reportedly asked three times during a security brief why we can't just use nuclear weapons. The use of a single nuclear warhead would likely mean the end of the world, so @Mad Jack may not be far off with his assessment.

I agree that he is part of the establishment and I should've phrased it differently. I meant that Hillary and co. are a much more controllable asset to those who back her and will likely provide more of the same ol' gov. we've gotten used to (listening to anyone with the $ to do so). Trump on the other hand is much more volatile and less likely to pander to interests that don't support his type of wealth (real estate, various businesses, etc.) which might to our benefit as he might just actually make some changes that step on the toes of the mega wealthy. On the other hand, he might do none of that but he's a helluva a lot more likely to do it than Hillary would be.

Also, I can't really blame him for avoiding taxes. It seems to be rather common that people who are in the position to dodge taxes, do so. Its unfortunate and an extremely difficult problem to solve but greed is just human nature. I would sooner fault Hillary due to the source of her wealth than I would Trump who acquired his fortune legitimately (mostly) but dodged taxes because the system allowed him to do so.

At the end of the day, Trump IS a smart dude (its hard to be a billionaire and not be) and will probably acclimate to the position. To be honest, I'm not sure if he says these wildly crazy things because he knows it resonates with the American people or if he actually believes them. I wouldn't be surprised if this persona he's drummed up is just a tactful play at the lowest common denominator to secure a win.

Either way it shakes down, it might be useful for us to have a really piss poor president so that the people of this country start waking up and putting people who actually have the people's interest at heart in office. The status quo isn't a good option to continue pursuing.

But to be clear, I'm definitely not a fan of Trump. I just dislike Hillary more. I'm probably gonna go w/ Daurang on this one and not vote at all.