Which Presidential Candidate Will Save You Money?

[@KylaScanlon]

I follow the outline of the CRFB analysis in this video! The document is incredible and you should check it out. Thanks for watching.

[@coloseam]

CRFB is Biased, source of the analysis is very important

[@HankyUSA]

​@@coloseam Biased in which way?

[@DoNotEatPoo]

But can we all agree the government has a SPENDING problem?

[@mssleeper19]

@@HankyUSAfrom what i could find online it says they lean conservative, but that was a preliminary search. their website says they are bipartisan

[@ntb3]

@@coloseam is mad because the CRFB is biased toward factual information which is upsetting to them.

[@Tufas]

Thanks for presenting the numbers and taking the time to go through each proposal, this is exactly the kind of information we need more of.

[@KylaScanlon]

thank you so much

[@Dralchemy]

This will be interesting to look at after 4 years to see how the policy results match the predictions here.

[@KedTaczynski]

The one economic guarantee with both candidates is that Israel will continue to receive hundreds millions of funding annually.

[@dreamer5687]

lmao real;

[@CitizenOK]

Its billions of weapons worth, and thats just congress people proping up their stock portfolios through the military industrial complex. That's not good for Israel either, the US can pull the plug on any Israeli operation they don't like. Overall should be phased out, i say that as an Israeli. That deal does more damage than help Israel.

[@ky1le750]

Israel is effectively the 53rd state of America. Of course it gets bipartisan support.

[@kyleolson9636]

Which is why this is a non-issue in the presidential campaign.

[@amanky11]

Good

[@terimclennan388]

Excellent information. I wish this was shared by legacy media as well. Thank you.

[@KylaScanlon]

Thank you! The CFRB did a great job

[@JurgenAndersonMusic]

thanks for going through and explaining it so well

[@YouArentHereYet]

Thanks for compiling all of this in one video!

[@Jose31917]

Thanks for laying this out for us. Very informative. This is the breakdown I needed. FYI. With Trump’s plan to extend and expand TCJA… you have the doc at 5.35T but then the list with black background at 3.5T. @13:58.

[@RiderX424]

Also wanted to point this is out because it’s such a significant difference

[@KylaScanlon]

extending tcja would be $5.35T - thanks for catching that !

[@matthew2531]

@@RiderX424 whats a couple trillion between friends like US and Israel

[@chrisgreen9937]

Thank you for the vibes, thank you for the presentation.

[@jacques2659]

I genuinely appreciate the analytical approach. However, I’ve worked closely in the past with both the Fed and the US Treasury, and none of this is any way something that can be planned ahead of time. US spending doesn’t work as expected. If you were to put an analysis like this together for any 5 random US presidents and compare it to their actual results, you would find trillion dollar variances in dozens of areas. Secondly - this is my problem with economists as a profession - no one has any realistic idea how this “flows” through the economy. Tariffs may spark innovation. Social spending may continue to erode employer confidence (as we saw from last weeks job numbers). Every former Fed chair has essentially written at least one book on how this effect works in unexpected ways. Third, I’m not sure if it is intentional, but you did not include the costs of foreign interventionism. That is a major aspect of US spending, and the two candidates can and will differ in major ways from one another in how they distribute foreign aid. Again - I appreciate the attempt at being analytical and unbiased. But this, at the end of the day, is just unbiased conjecture.

[@MyCipherComplete]

Forgive me for my ignorance I am not educated in economic policy and I honestly don't read much about it either. But let me see if I can summarize what you're saying. You think that we can't tell who would be better for the economy with a simple accounting like this? So how would you improve the accounting? Is there a point where you would realistically conclude one way or the other that a candidate is better for the economy than another? Why are so many economists on record saying that kamala's economic policy is substantially better than Trump's if these types of analysis are inconclusive? Are they all partisan? On a more personal level, isn't it obvious that one of the candidates wants to see the American economy thrive, whereas the other doesn't seem to really give a rats ass?

[@jacques2659]

@@MyCipherComplete “Economists” as a profession rarely understand the operations of the US Fed or US Treasury. They are academics with a focus on trend prediction, and have rarely ever held any sort of real position directing federal income flows. This was evidenced by the mid-2010s MMT craze, where economists seemed to just realize all at once that taxation revenues didn’t line up with national expenses (which anyone working in gov Finance could have told you since the 1940s). It’s best to think of “economic” as an extension of philosophy - not a real accounting of how monetary operations actually work. I think the academics have improved over the last few decades, but very little. As such, yes - most economists are highly biased in their predictive models, just as an academic in philosophy would be biased toward their base worldview. It’s probably practical to note, economists have NEVER predicted economic trends longer than a decade in advance with realistic outcomes. No economist predicted 2008 any significant time before 2008, nor the Great Depression, or any of the economic downturns. So, an economics endorsing one candidate over another is simply like an academic saying they prefer one author over another. They may have logic and data to back up their opinion, but their opinion, frankly, is just conjecture. The second fatal flaw with economists is they primarily rely on 20th century trend data. And anyone who has worked in real government finance in the last decade can tell you that is simply a laughable model, as the 20th century has been very poor at predicting anything economic in the 21st century. As for what Kyla has put together in this video: she’s simply accounting for public statements and giving an estimated monetary value to those statements. There’s nothing wrong with this inherently; it’s a reasonable way to judge a candidate. The issue I have is portraying this as anything other than conjecture. As I said in my original comment, if you took five random presidents and compared their public statements pre-term to post-term, there is almost nothing in common between the two sides economically. Presidents have a terrible track record of DOING what they say they will do. Almost none of them have. The other issue I take with this deniability that presidents don’t control the economy outside of taxation. That’s just false. Lincoln, for example, put the US Dollar in circulation to fund the Civil War. FDR and Truman restructured the entire global economy around the US dollar. Wilson created the Fed. Bush signed the 2008 stimulus. Absolutely none of the most important things that presidents do to impact the economy can be predicted. I have no strong opinion on if Trump or Kamala would be “better” for the US economy. By every metric, Trump’s economy pre-COVID was one of the strongest economies in US history. Biden’s, post-COVID, has been one of the weakest. How much of those two outcomes can be attributed to each president specifically? It’s not easy to quantify from an economic perspective. To quantify what can be attributed to a specific president outside of the global factors around them takes DECADES of scholarship and historical study. Harold Holzer has a fantastic book on Lincoln’s economy called “A Just and Generous Nation”, but even after two turns of the century, he can’t quantity how much of Lincoln’s economics were Lincoln himself, and how much were the Civil War. Kyla calling some basic tax measures “the economy” and declaring one candidate better than the other is simply conjecture. It doesn’t factor in the human capital markets (jobs), the housing markets, foreign aid, trade operations, etc. I appreciate her attempt to be “unbiased”, but I still find her rigidity unhelpful

[@MyCipherComplete]

@@jacques2659 thanks for your response, very fascinating stuff

[@aaron159r2]

jacques2659 explained the shortcomings of this type of analysis perfectly.

[@tonyjacob_]

Very good video. You did a good job breaking each things down.

[@exposedd2]

What an amazing video packed with information. Thank you Kyla!

[@rhondathompson6942]

she ask you who better i say trump

[@KylaScanlon]

thank you!

[@riyakrishnan8799]

Hi Kyla, is there any way I can access this document to send some friends and family?

[@Rabeeeeeee]

Not expecting people to go through this and watch the full video and internalize it. However, if they do, they will understand which candidate is BS-ing more. Sales tax/Tariffs will always hurt the lower-mid income people, whatever way it gets implemented. That's why, rich people do not like progressive taxation.

[@pbrown0829]

Yeah they want to keep their money. Crazy thought right. People would create the most value want to keep their stuff and not have it voted away by people who are net takers from the government

[@dmike3507]

@@pbrown0829 Labor creates value, not owners. The rich are largely owners. If they were making that money themselves then strikes wouldn't work, and most of the labor force could be fired without causing much if any harm to the economy. You are clueless. Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 3rd 1861 State of the Union Address: "It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life. Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed."

[@Marcus-rr6qn]

Just buy American then you don’t have to worry about tariffs.

[@boccobadz]

Thank goodness nothing hurts Pelosi's insider trading 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Nilruin]

@@Marcus-rr6qn I guarantee over half the shit in your house was made in China. Bet.

[@falsificationism]

Anyone over the age of 25 knows exactly how irrelevant "plans" are for candidates running within the Democratic and Republican parties. *Sales pitches are not plans.*

[@diversityhobbit]

exactly it's a selection not an election

[@killshot093]

These plans are each candidates most optimistic roadmap for running the US economy; if even these rosy depictions are shown to be harmful if taken at face value then they will almost certainly be worse when exposed to the compromises and restrictions of the real world. A useful benchmark if not an exact prediction.

[@matthew2531]

@@diversityhobbit but the fed egirl spent like an hour reading and writing it so I mean we could just play along. Also Warhammer jokes

[@kyleolson9636]

Exactly, which is why you should really only look at the central message. Increased spending on tax cuts for the wealthy vs. increased spending on programs for the poor, working, and middle class. That is the real difference. All the details are just window dressing.

[@matthew2531]

@@kyleolson9636 THE EMPORER PROTECTS!!!! COME ASTARDES FOR THE EMPIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@riththurn8508]

There is a freeze frame of "The Trump Plan" on 17:38 that stops us from seeing the video in the background. Nice job btw, I enjoy your videos.

[@KylaScanlon]

yes that was all intentional i am very good at editing videos 😭

[@nodirjonsattarov6296]

@@KylaScanlon😂

[@NiteSaiya]

Well, I'm guessing today we need to start thinking about investing in something that will survive 4+ years of economic devastation.

[@joed1978]

Thanks for the info.

[@davethompson3226]

What do you think about the idea that lowering the corporate tax rate could result in a net increase in corporate tax revenue? High level rationale is that if you have lower tax rates on shore you reduce the incentive to offshore profits for the largest corporations (i.e. apple Ireland royalties scheme to take advantage of Ireland 15% tax rate)? Lowering tax rates to increase total revenue may seem counterintuitive, but is this something that actually pans out or is it a too-good-to-be-true idea? Edit to add: great video thank you!!

[@Jlvleh]

Thank you Kyla!!!

[@KylaScanlon]

thank you!

[@doubtingtom92]

This video is good timing. Thanks for putting in the work to get this out when you did.

[@Welcome2It]

Leave it to Kyla for having the most informative election vid I’ve seen all day. Thanks for putting this together LEGEND

[@KylaScanlon]

big thanks to the CFRB, penn wharton, itep, and all the various news orgs! there's a lot of good info, just takes forever to find + sift through

[@CJ_Walks]

Maybe a video on stock buybacks?

[@DanielMartinez-cs8fg]

Hi Friend, sure I see one is cheaper then the other. I Wonder of a comparison as president Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 How much of there promises where kept "while on the campaign " and how much was spent at the end of there terms.

[@KylaScanlon]

that's a smart idea!

[@aesop1451]

Trump didn't build the wall and gave Israel everything they wanted. I cannot forgive that.

[@DanielMartinez-cs8fg]

@KylaScanlon Thanks, friend.

[@sampetralia]

Thanks for doing this

[@rodcc885]

Can you do biden's 2020-2024 economic plan and see how accurate it was?

[@aaron159r2]

Exactly. How close was Biden's pre-election pandering proposals to what actually happened? Or any prez for that matter.

[@charlyk-w1h]

Thanks so much for this breakdown!

[@GeorgeP-uj8xc]

Both candidates are going to continue raising the deficit, only Kamala has a plan to pay for it. I'm an independent and lean fiscally conservative but her approach makes much more sense.

[@adamjezewski654]

Im confused whats her plan to pay for it, she stills raises the deficit over 10 years and I don't see which of her actions would result in being able to pay it off faster if at all?

[@DoNotEatPoo]

Don't be fooled. Perform a historic search on her actions rather than her words. She doesn't intend to actually do any of these things, nor would congress allow it without a fight of funding and equal application of laws.

[@Adikengy]

Same here

[@pbrown0829]

You can’t pay for the deficit and increase. That means you aren’t paying for the deficit. Let just face the fact the debt will never be paid off and at some time in the future it will blow up

[@KylaScanlon]

@@adamjezewski654 i discuss in the video how she plans to pay for it

[@rossbaker9721]

Kyla in your book you say a high USD makes buying goods in China more expensive for Americans. Can you explain how? I high domestic currency allows you to expand your purchasing power abroad if your currency is valued higher than the other currency. Alternatively a low USD makes exports cheaper for consumption of the other nation if their currency is valued high. To my knowledge this is how trade surpluses and deficits are defined. Can you elaborate from you book?

[@earthbai]

Great job! Thanks for doing this work.

[@drewgriffing7447]

Literally everyone should watch this. Fantastic video, thank you Kyla!

[@AthenaTheWolf]

Welcome to Boston! Enjoy your stay here

[@schm2818]

How realistic are any of these proposals if there's no majority for whomever wins this week? I'd assume it's a lot of hot air being blown to stir up support.

[@KylaScanlon]

Its always posturing

[@WBF_III]

I love this format. Couple of editing hiccups, but the way you broke it down is so valuable. I wish I could have sent those slides to some family before they hit the polls!!

[@Pohgg-c9o]

I'm not American and obviously do not a vote there. Watched little election coverage outside of what made it organically to my regular subscriptions. So did not have any any predictions while watching live coverage on election night. A few things were on my mind from watching this vid's stats tho. Tax breaks for new home buyers and tax breaks for children/families are aimed at a small age range and have incredibly small generations passing through at the moment. Making it even smaller is roughly 80% of 50% of that group is not participating in partnering up and not thinking they might need to vote their wallet in that direction. At least in that regard may have been a net loss of vote buying. Tax breaks less targeted plays to a bigger audience.

[@xvx4848]

I love this video! Unfortunately, a lot of people no longer care about facts.

[@itsJoshW]

I think the most hilarious and sad part of this is that the Trump economy will do the following: - Make a wider delta between the "working class" and "wealthy class" - Create a wider divide between "working poor" and "working class", thus potentially even creating a caste system - Increase total costs of goods and services by double, if not far more, due to tarif's (but hey, hourly workers will get overtime pay without tax, almost like you only need to remove overtime, or make them salaried without overtime, to beat that added cost to your company) - The National Deficit will increase from 35 trillion to 50 trillion by 2028 (lol) - Decrease the capability of smaller businesses to thrive, thus permitting a "buy out" by larger conglomerates & corporations (more monopolies) But hey, at least your typical gas price will go from $3.43 per gallon to $3.01 per gallon, except they'll probably increase the tax on gas to make up for added tax cuts to wealthy. Oh, and bonus, since the conservative party has been trying this for some time now -- Potential 'federal sales tax' on all items, goods and services designed to alleviate the tax burden of the wealth class Watch in 2026, we're going to end up having specified "president backed" companies with no tarif's on foreign goods, pressuring the closure of hundreds of thousands of companies and corporations and increasing the dependency on foreign goods & services, rather than creating our own industry in the US for certain avenues -- such as chip manufacturing. I still laugh that both Trump & Biden wanted to create a branch of TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company), in parts of the US -- something that never got canceled, yet only to ignore that we had chip manufacturing in the US originally (Intel Foundries, anyone). That being said. I can only project that the cost of basic goods that require technology will skyrocket...and that's just one avenue of basic daily life for 90% of American's. Can't wait for people to realize that their gas prices are going up because the pumps require technology that isn't made in the US...and probably won't be unless we do exactly (and ironically) what Biden was trying to do with bideonomics (which, ironically, was investing in technology manufacturing lol)

[@itsJoshW]

18:26 - National sales tax. Not only was it tried to be passed in Congress in 2022, and 2023 (and 2024) but it's also something that was discussed in P2025, and particularly by a multitude of project Trump officials this year -- They want to actually institute a legitimate "federal sales tax", and that's beside the tarifs. What I think is absolutely crazy is that over half the voting population this time voted for this and said "this will fix the economy". Not even that Kamala had a great plan either, but his plan, and his assumed P2025 plan, are both the way you destroy the economy to 'make more profits for a select few', rather than fix it for the broader population. What we needed is checks & balances to protect citizens against rampant capitalism, and we needed Public options for each avenue to force competition with what is, effectively, numerous industries that have monopolies in select areas. We needed to increase are revenue by increasing taxes for anyone above a certain income threshold (let's say above 20 million). We needed to make it illegal & a federal crime for anyone above that threshold to dodge, try to lower their burden, or entirely not pay it. We needed to cut spending on our military, provide an easier pathway to citizenship, and invest more money to our states rather than to larger businesses. We needed to invest in our highways/transport and infostructure. We needed to utilize that added tax revenue to pay off the burden of "tax free" America for wealthy for 40 years, and pay off the national deficit. We needed to bring back technology industries into the US, including chip manufacturing, technical skills jobs, and various technology-facing industries that other Countries, particularly Taiwan, China and Japan, are toppling us in. We needed to remove our reliance on oil export and change our export to a different industry. We needed to work on finding a new combustion source of fuel, that isn't natural gas or petroleum/crude oil, and bridge this gap between electric (combustion engines. We needed to advance as a society. Not turn our Country into a theocracy ruled and governed by a minority while the larger quantity of individuals weren't motivated enough to vote. We need to make voting easier, more accessible, and more viable for every citizen. We needed to protect rights that were already justified, not remove them to victim blame groups of people for someone else's financial misfortune. But we didn't do this. Instead, those 72 million people voted "for the economy", an economy that will probably collapse the US by itself, all because they think that China is the reason they're unable to afford gas, despite the US being one of the worlds largest exporters of refined petroleum (thus, we should have it dirt cheap, but it's because profits, that we don't). Maybe in these next 4 years, people would see the writing on the wall, realize that they need to start being a bit more conscience on their decision, and make one that betters not just themselves, but those around them. You can't succeed anywhere if you're stepping on people. The first rule for success is to bring others with you, not hold them back.

[@itsJoshW]

21:30 This is what I sort of touch on above. Par for the course is the absolute stupidity of the people who read that and said "this is a good thing", while entirely ignoring that it's literally an import, not an export, for another countries chip manufacturing. We have one already that's US based and was (originally) funded by the Government, two actually. one was Intel Foundries, the other was AMD. AMD in early 2010's disbanded their manufacturing and started going to TSMC, while nVidia eventually went between various ones to land back at TSMC or Samsung in latter years. Currently as we sit in a technology bubble of larger technology chip companies (such as AMD, Intel, nVidia & Apple), we hilariously watch them all go to Taiwain to obtain semiconductors, rather than funding Intel to obtain the widely exclusive and expensive lithography machinery that TSMC only is able to acquire due to the funding of their Government. Trump doesn't really want to "cancel this", he wants continue this but underneath his Presidency, he literally was the one who started the "get them here" trend back in 2019 and especially 2020. As far as understanding this is concerned, I'd argue the largest problem with technology today isn't just manufacturing, it's exports across the board. We make very little here, in technology and energy, only because our "global export" is typically oil and petroleum, rather than anything else. If you take a look, our export numbers have been the same for decades, yet our tax burden kept decreasing. We invest more (and more) into petroleum and oil, natural gas and petroleum production while seeing minimal ROI from an export, not because "pricing", but because a large quantity of the world doesn't use as much as we do in the US, and that only decreased over time (not increased). The ironic part of Bidenomics is that it actually would have worked if it was invested into, minus TSMC (lol). We needed to produce more exports in technology and modern industries, rather than looking at 60 years ago and saying "what did we export the most here". Which, I'm sure, is the extent of knowledge the Trump administration did. Looking at the past to find out how to resolve something isn't a bad thing, but it certainly is when it comes to technology...something a team of 60+ year old harvard law students, who barely can use their cell phones, have no idea about. I mean, consider that they kept saying "russia was interfering with our elections" yesterday because the threats came from ru domains, while ignoring that anyone can obtain a DNS, let alone SMTP and can it does nothing but shield your identity like a Proxy. That being said, I think the largest problem with manufacturing is, in fact, that we don't have proper exports for what society needs today. They don't need more petroleum for their 3,000 pound hybrid, they need the chips that fuel the vehicle more in order to drive the cost down. Just like we won't have cheaper gas because we produce more of it -- if anything, it'll incentivize artificial scarcity, drive up the pricing, while the cost per gallon is increased due to tariffs on technology to fix the pumps when they break, since they rely on foreign materials. Much like your car. Much like your TV, or computer, or server, or internet, or cell phone, or services. Literally everything is going to increase in pricing by double, or triple, or further -- and if we do what was projected by conservative economists earlier this year (deflate the dollar to pay off the national deficit), expect that the value of $1 will be something akin to requiring $100, and make it almost impossible to live. But that's probably out in lala land, since I truly don't think anyone in our Government is that stupid enough to deflate our currency to "pay off the national deficit". This part was more of a rant about the total state of things than anything, my bad.

[@zjenji]

I feel like the de-coupling of our economy from China, in particular manufacturing, is not discussed enough. This is very costly in the short term. Also, as a former home construction worker, I'm certain taking almost a full year off from building new homes due to the pandemic will take at least a decade to catch up from. Thanks Kyla!

[@akj3344]

Thanks for making this video.

[@goofywill90]

You what's weird I haven't seen a single ad from Trump on KZbin. It's all Kamala is that normal. He's rich af. I can't imagine that he won't fund some ads on KZbin. They both do it on TV. It suspiciously feels like certain people are pushing for her to be the "right" choice on top of the issues. Keep in mind we've been through both of their terms before.

[@admmonidasf123]

Donald Trump is not as rich as you think he is. The Harris campaign has raised much more money.

[@dangerduguid]

Well done thank you

[@davidjohnson5557]

This was recommended a little late :p

[@ghosty_made]

kyla we beg you to get a mic

[@akj3344]

Dont beg. Vote. (subscribe)

[@mrmooney25]

Nice battlestar Galatica Easter egg.

[@mantap95]

Hi, here from Indonesia... Thanks for ur video 🙌

[@Thomas_basiv]

Great stuff as always. How come there are gaps of silence in the Spotify version? I swear audio is easier for you to monetise than KZbin videos?

[@KylaScanlon]

Thats because of the sound effects of me explaining the $ breakdown

[@rivasramone]

DRILL BABY DRILL KYLA

[@learnallican3627]

This is great! I love the google doc

[@jdperdomo]

Imagine a world where everybody ALWAYS have this kind of analysis before voting... Nah, let's just stick with ol' fashioned snake oil thing.

[@cetriyasArtnComicsChannel]

If he or she does this, does it effect taxes like sales? Or gov fees for services like getting a passport or more tolls or? Just thinking about all the behavior changes?

[@galandoftruth6730]

Hey Kyle talk to a Tax person there saying different things. What policy is good and other things are Trash. Read about QBI.

[@tiffanymiller585]

I wish people cared about the facts. Thank you for this video.

[@TheGIGACapitalist]

I see so many people talking about price consequences of tarrifs and retaliation is given some lip service but I don't think people are adequately understanding the risk of a unified "world VS america" situation.

[@CitizenOK]

Honestly Iv'e been leaning towards trump but the fed control thing is very worrying. Like thats enough of a red flag to make me reconsider.

[@OCULIAPERI]

good to know what is in the fine print for either side. entertained with the support media on important bullet points. these breakdowns are far more useful vs following the IRL circus.

[@sudd3660]

dismantle the governments, anyone you vote for can not do enough good changes to have any effect. system change not president change is the way to go.

[@bike4peaceRTW]

I agree with you brother. In the simplest of terms, one candidate proposes to reduce the size of government. The other candidate wants to expand it. I know who I am voting for.

[@hazardousmaterial5492]

We're screwed

[@foxtrotfunky]

This is the type of reporting we need in regards to news about the election. If any mainstream news outlet did a numerical analysis, I think people would have a better idea of the economic impact of Trump and Harris platforms. Good work.

[@jonathan6353]

Good analysis, but seems very bias lol. Sure, Harris policies may be cheaper on the immediate term. But isn't important to think about how much economic productivity increase could potentially come out of Trumps plans in the long run? Im no economist. And Im not on either side of spectrum. Just stating the bias on the immediate term. 1st order thinking vs 2nd order thinking

[@itsJoshW]

Well, we can start here. The largest export of the US is actually Crude Oil/Petroleum/Natural Gas (so, energy). However, this doesn't tell you the full story. Our export use to be varied across numerous fields, from technology to all the way to textiles. As neoliberalism spread in the 1980's, we eventually shortened this exporting list and our number one export became "energy". But again, that's only a small fraction of the story. Although we kept producing record numbers of crude oil, diesel (ala first stage crude oil), petroleum (gas for your car) and fracking for Natural Gas, we actually never exported any different threshold numbers. Since the 1990's until today, our export number has stayed stagnant, as the pricing has fluctuated per barrel, and our Country was going through war. To pass by a bunch of boring stuff, we reached today. The difference per quantity sold is negligible from the 1980's until today, but what's important is the cost of export. We still receive equal amount per export today as we did even 30 years ago, all while income from taxes are significantly lower, and various other exports are dramatically lower. Which leads me properly to the economic plan problems. First, if we want to grow our economy, the way you do that is by improving the economy, not by punishing the consumer. This method would work if we had opposing industries to what is purchased through imports -- but we don't. In fact, I'd argue that your Ford Mustang and Chevy Corvette are going to cost more, seeing as how neither have parts originated from internal to the US. In addition, it's very likely that these manufactures (and all the rest) will simply ignore that and just let the consumer pay the cost. Second, focusing on energy isn't a bad thing, in fact that's literally what Biden did (lol). The problem is the energy source. You see, as noted above - the reason why our export didn't change in total quantity, or slowed down (in retrospect as population and accessibility increased over time), is obviously due to basic economics. If you have too much supply, and the demand has already been met, then you're never going to sell more than the demand and the rest is wasted. We could easily do a lot to rectify many issues across the country, and the number 1 thing here to fix could be the economy. Neither plan's are the correct way forward, but Trump's is a disaster that could legitimately cripple your spending power, increase the costs of goods and services across the board, and it'll provide zero benefit to fixing an economy -- but it may allow him a "better negotiation" to get tesla in china. Which would be ironic, but also a joke.

[@NickYT26]

top 1% in america is roughly $800k+, raising taxes by $120k seems pretty material for the lower band of the top 1%

[@justace123]

Only 4 international trips this year instead of 5. Just devastating 😢. Might even have to keep the new S-Class 5 years instead of 3.

[@userre85]

​@@justace123 Hedonic treadmill.

[@RIP212]

It's on average while this lower bracket will likely pay like 20-30k more, some people like Musk will pay few millions more. They'll average out at 120k.

[@NickYT26]

@ yeah im an idiot and realized this later lmao

[@NickYT26]

@rip212

[@twohornedpuppet85]

As someone who's spent time on both sides I think this video is perfectly balanced.

[@rikachiu]

Can we please have a copy of your document. Or if there is a paywall somewhere to get a copy? Greatly appreciate it. This is amazing work

[@KylaScanlon]

Its linked in the box

[@rikachiu]

@@KylaScanlon I just see your sources, the video looked like you had your own personal notes and links. Is that linked there? I must be blind.

[@arunchadda1953]

video overlay issue at the 18:40 mark.

[@bowenw6218]

informative but you've omited harris' proposal to tax unrealized capital gains.

[@jmanly707]

Kyla, it is somewhat disappointing how your bias seeps through into the coverage of the analysis. You look at the flow-on effects of trump's tariffs, not treating them as revenue but rather cost, and they are a significant cost that ends up putting trump's tax increases way higher for the mid and bottom 1/5. You don't look at the other side of it which is that those consumers would no longer need to spend an increased amount on goods from overseas as those goods will begin to be produced more domestically. Meanwhile, you do not look at the flow on effects of Kamala's corporate and income tax raises, simply treating them as an increase and moving on without the analysis of how behavior works, that those companies and individuals will move and leave taxation boundaries. This has been seen before in Australia with the mining tax, it actually resulted in lower revenue as mining operations stopped. Thoughts?

[@KylaScanlon]

Hi - this isnt how tariffs work. Tariffs are 100% pass through, corp taxes are 30-60%. Tariffs HURT consumers directly - every economist will tell you this. I care about people, so I dont support blanket tariffs and find all evidence against them as a reason for that. Corp taxes have their own flaws, but they are not even a fraction as harmful as 20% flat tariffs + 60% tariff on China

[@nerios.v]

@@KylaScanlon You are not only wrong on tariffs, you have no clue how they actually work when they are applied properly. You oversimplify them as, we put a tariff, now this company will jack up prices and the consumer will just pay it. You speak of tariffs with the understanding of a 5 year old (not surprised).

[@chancebam]

@@nerios.vexplain how a tariff boosts domestic production please.

[@jmanly707]

@@KylaScanlonAre you able to respond to the other part of what I said? You are treating tariff taxation and the pass-through on consumers as the sole result of it (also I wasn't talking about cost pass-through to consumers for corporate tax, I was talking about taxation leading to less revenue collected as has been shown time and time again and by economic research) and you are not weighing up the actual result of those tarrifs combined with the tax reduction for domestic production, as resulting in business moving back to the United states. How come in your analysis you looked at 10 year results for many other costs but didn't consider the long run benefits of this? It's like looking at chip production in the USA and how costly it will be in the short run to set up high grade factories without considering the long run benefits. Thoughts?

[@jmanly707]

@@KylaScanlonadditionally, your response suggests you didn't even properly read my comment. "This isn't how tariffs work". What isn't? Tariffs don't raise the cost of items, discouraging consumers to buy poorly made slave labor supplied products from China and overseas? Are you able to see years ahead beyond the basic immediate analysis of the cost applying tariffs tommorow?

[@coloseam]

The analyst has a limited view on the spending. Trumps policies may seem expensive but the aim is to convince companies to stay home, Kamala’s Plan seem cheaper but have long term impact on the market

[@Anthony-dy5cq]

He already had 4 years and he added 8 trillion to the debt, take covid out and it's 4.3 trillion. He still oversaw the largest offshoring of US jobs and job losses. 200k jobs were lost and 3 million fewer jobs existed under Trump. At some point, preferably between today and tomorrow at 8pm your local time you're going to have to realize Trump is a negative for any economy.

[@Anthony-dy5cq]

200k jobs were offshored and 3 million fewer jobs existed under the Trump administration. At some point between today and tomorrow 8pm (your local time) you're going to need to come across an epiphany and realize that Trump is a disaster for the economy

[@dalinhays1458]

This was cool. Thanks for doing this. Your bias was pretty apparent though, especially from 23:00 on. It is untrue to say that “none of his former cabinet members support him”. I mean what are the actual odds of that being true?

[@KylaScanlon]

it actually is true! none of them do. you can look this up.

[@Nilruin]

This is literally google-able information. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has called him a “threat to democracy.” Former national security adviser John Bolton has declared him “unfit to be president.” Even Mike Pence refused to endorse him. This isn't bias, this is fact. If you're gonna claim someone has a bias, you better be damn sure of it. You can claim that she was exaggerating and generalizing, and that would probably be true, as there might be a handful of former cabinet members that are still supporting him, but the fact is that the vast majority of his former cabinet want nothing to do with him, and some of them actively campaign against him these days, as evidenced already.

[@nickconol1428]

Bolsheviks understand the economy?😮

[@KyleBevis-u7j]

Excellent work as always Kyla. Nice to see Harris’ plans explained and costed in such detail. No surprise the fvckwit man-child’s plans would be shit. Fingers crossed 🤞

[@hrdcpy]

An increase in tarrifs whilst canceling the CHIPS act... 🤦

[@mike_bianchi]

Would be great if we could just raise taxes on the rich and they would you know, pay it. But they won't. So, it doesn't actually translate into revenue which is what actually matters.

[@DoNotEatPoo]

Bingo! Or better yet, how about eliminate all tax loopholes and equally apply taxes across the board?

[@johnfitzgerald-kelly4359]

Harris will win. And that will kick the can down the road

[@joaovitorreisdasilva9573]

Huh, I am really surprised the dollar would be stronger under Trump due to tariffs. Gotta read that article right now. Also, you go grannies c:

[@themomaw]

I like how we've just given up on ever paying our debts. "Yup, the deficit will kill us all some day but that's for future generations to worry about"

[@HankyUSA]

Though I think the national debt is important, "the economy" is much more than just government revenue and spending.

[@wnow8987]

Wish more peps would see this. I forwarded it my colleagues. Too bad election day is tomorrow - if more people saw this may be they would think more about who they vote for.

[@Kenneth_James]

😭

[@SimGunther]

28:39 We know the system for thousands of years (not exaggerating) is run on fear. Love one another, be kind, and do genuine good ❤

[@bennycarter5249]

Free money = INFLATION Doesn't matter how much they gice out or to who. The average American is paying for it in the long run.

[@meijiishin5650]

And tariffs aren't inflation?

[@Anthony-dy5cq]

Methinks it's a little more complicated than that.

[@matthew2531]

@@meijiishin5650 hiring people to hire us to LARP costs far more than spending the $ directly on social services... Not certain what the end game on work ethic or responsibility but $ is $

[@lmao4982]

audio issues in the intro is unfortunate, makes you think it'll last thru the video

[@KylaScanlon]

What are the audio issues?

[@oliviapenland7894]

Would’ve preferred less annoying bias

[@aesop1451]

Bill Clinton had a good economy. He still ruined the country in other ways. There are things more important than the economy. Trump didn't build the wall and gave Israel everything that they wanted. We cannot forgive that. If we let Trump lose, the country will move further right

[@FishTall]

Oh no right ear audio only :/

[@KylaScanlon]

i think that's just the trump video!

[@beancount811]

💪

[@andrewthag]

So harris is better for the economy but her long term plan increases our deficit more and thats better for our economy?

[@raidtheairwaves42]

Which one is going to make it easier to get an entry level tech job and stop the layoffs

[@Data-skiing-hk]

Neither will have any direct affects. Secondary outcomes are not easily forecasted. Sorry to say a decade of free/near free debt is the cause.

[@grimeydave8561]

Under Trump no tech jobs needed! Manufacturing is back baby get on the factory floor and start making us Aluminum sheets and PVC Pipe!

[@akj3344]

I would say Trump. If kamala wants to tax the companies more, they would think long and hard before mass hiring people.

[@dennisbaeza3922]

As someone stated below, these are sales pitches and "in theory" At the end of the I'm for the person who is looking to make government more efficient and make sacrifices today so that tomorrow looks less bleak because I don't hate my children. I don't care for my benefit in the next 4 years, I care for my children's benefit in the next 10-15 years.

[@thad.champagne]

You missed 1 small point. Harris is an absolute incompetent liar.

[@everythingisfine9988]

So is Trump. 🤔 Guess that cancels out

[@akj3344]

​@@everythingisfine9988 Trump is far from incompetent. Only one of them opened their legs up to get ahead in life.

[@chrisrosenkreuz23]

I don't like the orange man but as an European I feel that making my country spend 4% on defence is long overdue.

[@youknownothingofmeormywork6001]

Open and shut case Watson

[@goku-pops7918]

I like what you do, but what good is a plan if corruption is not factored in. I believe if a country has low corruption and good intentions both of these plans can work

[@Omni0404]

Today the KZbin app said "Election day is today! Have you voted?" Lmao, it gave me a mini heart attack.

[@kinseywk]

Autocaption @28:54: "This is available as a podcast called butts."

[@nolanfroese9164]

Billions and billions and billions and billions

[@dylanJ4596]

What cracks me up is if you were to show this to Trump supporters they’ll just deny it and call it woke or something along those lines. Sad, but good job in showing the numbers

[@giraffetamer12]

You've gotta admit, no tax on overtime would be awesome

[@dmike3507]

Not really because you'd still have to make up for it some other way. It would only be awesome if that were done by taxing the rich more, but Congress would quickly dismantle that unfortunately.

[@akj3344]

On paper. But the companies will reduce your worktime to minimum hours and most of the pay will come from overtime. Making you and the employer money that wont be redistributed in the economy.

[@aaron159r2]

So then why did Americans overwhelmingly vote for a "worse" economy?

[@storminmormn6283]

Because the majority of Americans are idiots. The majority of Americans aren’t financially educated. The majority of Americans don’t even know Kamala’s policies. You’re asking the wrong question.

[@protennis365]

​@@storminmormn6283Democrat calling working class workers idiot.

[@brianpartridge6332]

Can't we have progressive politics AND remove fluoride from the water??

[@brandex2011]

Thig is, almost everything is paid for by the taxpayers. It would be nice if our government, whom we fund, would give us a better ROI. In other words, help out the people who pay for everything. That has consistently been considered a dire necessity to keep thing running on fumes, but enough to keep people returning to work the next day. But only the top echelons of the income pyramid receive most of the benefits. More equality would be a boon to the folks who pay the heavier imbalance of taxes and would ensure a better quality of life for the major funders. That said, I will take Harris' smaller national debt and her investments in social programs, thank you.

[@Coraxiom]

If anyone is interested in Trump's economic philosophy look into protectionism.

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

Ha that's a trick question you can't get me. The answer is none of them.