2016-09-17 万吉庆 译 保守主义评论
按：本文译自《纽约邮报》，作者查尔斯·加斯帕里诺（Charles Gasparino），福克斯商业新闻网资深记者。9月15日，共和党总统候选人唐纳德·川普，在纽约经济俱乐部主办的午餐会上做了主题发言。其经济纲领强调给企业减税、减少政府管制。
……………………
本周二，唐纳德·川普为自己的总统候选人身份，做了迄今为止最有说服力的演讲。在纽约经济学俱乐部演说时，他克制住那些无用的民粹主义言辞，重新瞄准美国人最关心的议题：奥巴马治下萎靡不振的经济，以及希拉里·克林顿不可思议地照单接收这些引发问题的政策。
现在，要是他能把这次演讲的主旨一直保持到选举日，那该多好。
选民对两位候选人的“可信赖度”都有争议。但是当你深入探究美国人最关心什么时，那就是经济议题。而这很可能是希拉里的软肋，她支持而且不时许诺要进一步扩大现有政策，而它们已经导致经济的低增长、大规模不充分就业，以及中产阶级收入增长迟缓。
是的。川普谈到了自己将如何兑现承诺，如进行儿童税务抵免以及加强基础设施投资。当然，要是川普不对自由贸易进行荒谬的攻击，那（演讲）就不完整了。不出所料，他提到可能会与中国展开一场贸易战争，而且他将还对北美自由贸易协定重新谈判。
幸好，他对贸易的胡说八道只占了很少篇幅，取而代之的是提出了一套激动人心的、很大程度上是里根版的美国经济前景，他将实施减税（4.4万亿美元，译注：原文如此）以及简化税法（从七档减到三档）。
他还要将繁重的企业税降到15%，使美国在全球更有竞争力，并且砍掉那些压榨企业利润、扼杀就业机会的规章条例。
这些举措与过去八年来的政策——希拉里发誓要沿袭和指望的政策——形成了鲜明对比。
“我对手的方案是，征更多的税、更多的管制，更多的公共开支以及更大规模的财富分配——其前景必然是低增长、收入下滑以及经济凋敝，”川普说，“如果降低税收，取消破坏性的规章制度，释放美国人的惊人能量，同时在“美国优先”的原则下协商贸易协定，而后，我们将会创造海量的工作岗位，实现前所未有的繁荣……不是把工作和财富赶跑，相反，美国将成为世界上最强大的创新和创造就业的磁石。”
他甚至还抨击了左翼经济学家，如比尔·克林顿的前财政部长拉里·萨默斯，他试图将奥巴马目前的“低增长”经济（希拉里希望接受的），合理化为某种我们只能适应的“新常态”或长期性停滞，而非左翼经济学教义造成的亟需扔到历史垃圾箱里的东西。
“我的经济计划拒绝这种怀疑论，说什么我们的劳动力人数会进一步下降，工作将进一步减少，经济将不再像以往那样增长，”川普说。
他还补充道：“我们抵制那种悲观主义，说什么我们的生活水准不会再提高，（他们）接下来要瓜分和重新分配我们日渐萎缩的资源。今天破碎的东西可以被修复，今天的失败能够转变成明天的成功。”
希拉里·克林顿之所以照单全收奥巴马经济学，背后的逻辑很明显：她需要奥巴马的助选。
但她现在必须为那些站不住脚的政策辩护——川普在演讲中已经讲得很明白。确实出现了一些关于奥巴马经济的正面报道，本周早些时候，数据显示收入不平等方面出现了一些下滑，然而更多信息表明，美国人仍然经受大规模的不充分就业，收入几乎没有增长，就像川普解释的那样。
而且，他的演讲风格独特，在某个时刻，他还挪揄道：“以前汽车在弗林特市生产，而你在墨西哥喝不到水。现在倒好，汽车在墨西哥生产了，而你在弗林特却喝不到水。”——这里指的是弗林特市所遭遇的水危机，以此象征近年来政府的膨胀和低效。
他说得再好不过了。
………………………………分割线…………………………
小编注：照作者的看法，美国选民最关心的议题是经济议题，如果川普能把竞选的重心放在减税、削减政府管制上，成功的胜算会增大。下边给朋友贴几张报刊截图，看一下美国媒体近期是如何看待川、希大战的。
胡佛研究所的资深研究员Richard A. Epstein，哀叹两个候选人都不理想，都不可以收拾奥巴马八年来留下的烂摊子。
详见：http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency
《国家评论》的研究员Thomas L. Rhodes，承认这是两个烂苹果之争，美国人只能选一个不太烂的，并暗示到川普可能还不太烂。
详见：http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440119/hillary-clinton-terrible-week-illness-polling-collapse-donald-trump-surge
《美国保守派》的撰稿人Robert W. Merry暗示，从各种重要指标看，情况对希拉里不利，“黑天鹅事件”有可能发生，政治素人的川普当选为总统不是没有可能，并以卡特总统的当选作为先例。
详见：http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unlocking-the-election/
不过《福克斯新闻》撰稿人、哈佛名誉教授Alan Dershowitz认为，这是他有记忆以来，最为奇特的一次总统大选，变数太多，孰胜孰负，殊难断言。小编也同意这种看法，离美国总统大选不到两个月了，且让我们拭目以待吧。
详见：http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/16/alan-dershowitz-strange-incredible-2016-race-has-left-us-with-electile-dysfunction.html
注：本公号会紧密关注美国大选，对大选感兴趣的朋友可以关注我们哦～～
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trump should give this speech every day to Nov. 8
By Charles Gasparino September 15, 2016 | 7:33pm
Donald Trump made his best case yet for his presidential candidacy Thursday. In a speech to the New York Economic Club, he tamped down on needless populism and zeroed in on the No. 1 issue affecting Americans: the anemic Obama economy and Hillary Clinton’s bizarre embrace of the policies that caused it.
Now, if he can only give a variation of that speech every day until Election Day.
Voters have “trustworthiness” issues with both candidates. But when you drill down on what Americans care most about, it’s the economy. And this is where Hillary is possibly at her weakest, supporting and at times promising to expand upon the policies that have given the country low growth, massive under-employment and putrid wage growth for the vast middle class.
Yes, Trump was light on the specifics of how he was going to pay for some of his promises, like child-tax credits and infrastructure investments. And of course no Trump address on the economy would be complete without an obligatory and nonsensical attack on free trade — sure enough he mentioned a possible trade war with China and how he’ll renegotiate NAFTA.
Luckily, he kept much of his trade nonsense to a minimum, and instead offered a stirring, largely Reaganesque vision of America’s economic future where he would cut taxes ($4.4 trillion of them) and simplify the tax code (from seven to just three brackets).
He would also lower our onerous corporate tax rate to 15 percent, making the United States more competitive globally, and cut job-killing regulations that squeeze corporate profits and cost jobs.
It was a stark contrast to the policies of the past eight years, which Clinton vows to repeat and build upon.
“My opponent’s plan .?.?. offers only more taxing, regulating, more spending and more wealth redistribution — a future of slow growth, declining incomes and dwindling prosperity,” Trump said. “If we lower our taxes, remove destructive regulations, unleash the vast treasure of American energy and negotiate trade deals that put America first, then there is no limit to the number of jobs we can create and the amount of prosperity we can unleash .?.?. Instead of driving jobs and wealth away, America will become the world’s great magnet for innovation and job creation.”
He even took a swipe at the growing chorus of left-wing economists, like Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who have tried to rationalize the current Obama slow-growth economy Clinton wants to accept as the “new normal,” or secular stagnation, that we should all get used to, rather than something produced by left-wing economic dogma that desperately needs to be thrown into the ash heap of history.
“My economic plan rejects the cynicism that says our labor force will keep declining, that our jobs will keep leaving and that our economy can never grow as it did once before,” Trump said.
He added: “We reject the pessimism that says our standard of living can no longer rise, and that all that’s left to do is divide up and redistribute our shrinking resources. Everything that is broken today can be fixed, and every failure can be turned into a great success.”
The politics behind Hillary Clinton’s Obamanomics embrace are obvious: She needs Obama’s help getting elected.
But now she’s forced to defend the indefensible — a point Trump drove home during his speech. Indeed, for every positive report about the Obama economy, like one earlier in the week showing a slight ebbing in income inequality, there are many more demonstrating that Americans still remain massively under-employed and have wages barely budging, as Trump explained.
And he did it with style, at one point quipping that “it used to be cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint” — a reference to the water crisis that engulfed the city that has come to symbolize how government these days is bloated and inefficient.
He couldn’t have said it better.
Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent.
2016-09-17 万吉庆 译 保守主义评论
按：本文译自《纽约邮报》，作者查尔斯·加斯帕里诺（Charles Gasparino），福克斯商业新闻网资深记者。9月15日，共和党总统候选人唐纳德·川普，在纽约经济俱乐部主办的午餐会上做了主题发言。其经济纲领强调给企业减税、减少政府管制。
……………………
本周二，唐纳德·川普为自己的总统候选人身份，做了迄今为止最有说服力的演讲。在纽约经济学俱乐部演说时，他克制住那些无用的民粹主义言辞，重新瞄准美国人最关心的议题：奥巴马治下萎靡不振的经济，以及希拉里·克林顿不可思议地照单接收这些引发问题的政策。
现在，要是他能把这次演讲的主旨一直保持到选举日，那该多好。
选民对两位候选人的“可信赖度”都有争议。但是当你深入探究美国人最关心什么时，那就是经济议题。而这很可能是希拉里的软肋，她支持而且不时许诺要进一步扩大现有政策，而它们已经导致经济的低增长、大规模不充分就业，以及中产阶级收入增长迟缓。
是的。川普谈到了自己将如何兑现承诺，如进行儿童税务抵免以及加强基础设施投资。当然，要是川普不对自由贸易进行荒谬的攻击，那（演讲）就不完整了。不出所料，他提到可能会与中国展开一场贸易战争，而且他将还对北美自由贸易协定重新谈判。
幸好，他对贸易的胡说八道只占了很少篇幅，取而代之的是提出了一套激动人心的、很大程度上是里根版的美国经济前景，他将实施减税（4.4万亿美元，译注：原文如此）以及简化税法（从七档减到三档）。
他还要将繁重的企业税降到15%，使美国在全球更有竞争力，并且砍掉那些压榨企业利润、扼杀就业机会的规章条例。
这些举措与过去八年来的政策——希拉里发誓要沿袭和指望的政策——形成了鲜明对比。
“我对手的方案是，征更多的税、更多的管制，更多的公共开支以及更大规模的财富分配——其前景必然是低增长、收入下滑以及经济凋敝，”川普说，“如果降低税收，取消破坏性的规章制度，释放美国人的惊人能量，同时在“美国优先”的原则下协商贸易协定，而后，我们将会创造海量的工作岗位，实现前所未有的繁荣……不是把工作和财富赶跑，相反，美国将成为世界上最强大的创新和创造就业的磁石。”
他甚至还抨击了左翼经济学家，如比尔·克林顿的前财政部长拉里·萨默斯，他试图将奥巴马目前的“低增长”经济（希拉里希望接受的），合理化为某种我们只能适应的“新常态”或长期性停滞，而非左翼经济学教义造成的亟需扔到历史垃圾箱里的东西。
“我的经济计划拒绝这种怀疑论，说什么我们的劳动力人数会进一步下降，工作将进一步减少，经济将不再像以往那样增长，”川普说。
他还补充道：“我们抵制那种悲观主义，说什么我们的生活水准不会再提高，（他们）接下来要瓜分和重新分配我们日渐萎缩的资源。今天破碎的东西可以被修复，今天的失败能够转变成明天的成功。”
希拉里·克林顿之所以照单全收奥巴马经济学，背后的逻辑很明显：她需要奥巴马的助选。
但她现在必须为那些站不住脚的政策辩护——川普在演讲中已经讲得很明白。确实出现了一些关于奥巴马经济的正面报道，本周早些时候，数据显示收入不平等方面出现了一些下滑，然而更多信息表明，美国人仍然经受大规模的不充分就业，收入几乎没有增长，就像川普解释的那样。
而且，他的演讲风格独特，在某个时刻，他还挪揄道：“以前汽车在弗林特市生产，而你在墨西哥喝不到水。现在倒好，汽车在墨西哥生产了，而你在弗林特却喝不到水。”——这里指的是弗林特市所遭遇的水危机，以此象征近年来政府的膨胀和低效。
他说得再好不过了。
………………………………分割线…………………………
小编注：照作者的看法，美国选民最关心的议题是经济议题，如果川普能把竞选的重心放在减税、削减政府管制上，成功的胜算会增大。下边给朋友贴几张报刊截图，看一下美国媒体近期是如何看待川、希大战的。
胡佛研究所的资深研究员Richard A. Epstein，哀叹两个候选人都不理想，都不可以收拾奥巴马八年来留下的烂摊子。
详见：http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency
《国家评论》的研究员Thomas L. Rhodes，承认这是两个烂苹果之争，美国人只能选一个不太烂的，并暗示到川普可能还不太烂。
详见：http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440119/hillary-clinton-terrible-week-illness-polling-collapse-donald-trump-surge
《美国保守派》的撰稿人Robert W. Merry暗示，从各种重要指标看，情况对希拉里不利，“黑天鹅事件”有可能发生，政治素人的川普当选为总统不是没有可能，并以卡特总统的当选作为先例。
详见：http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unlocking-the-election/
不过《福克斯新闻》撰稿人、哈佛名誉教授Alan Dershowitz认为，这是他有记忆以来，最为奇特的一次总统大选，变数太多，孰胜孰负，殊难断言。小编也同意这种看法，离美国总统大选不到两个月了，且让我们拭目以待吧。
详见：http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/16/alan-dershowitz-strange-incredible-2016-race-has-left-us-with-electile-dysfunction.html
注：本公号会紧密关注美国大选，对大选感兴趣的朋友可以关注我们哦～～
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trump should give this speech every day to Nov. 8
By Charles Gasparino September 15, 2016 | 7:33pm
Donald Trump made his best case yet for his presidential candidacy Thursday. In a speech to the New York Economic Club, he tamped down on needless populism and zeroed in on the No. 1 issue affecting Americans: the anemic Obama economy and Hillary Clinton’s bizarre embrace of the policies that caused it.
Now, if he can only give a variation of that speech every day until Election Day.
Voters have “trustworthiness” issues with both candidates. But when you drill down on what Americans care most about, it’s the economy. And this is where Hillary is possibly at her weakest, supporting and at times promising to expand upon the policies that have given the country low growth, massive under-employment and putrid wage growth for the vast middle class.
Yes, Trump was light on the specifics of how he was going to pay for some of his promises, like child-tax credits and infrastructure investments. And of course no Trump address on the economy would be complete without an obligatory and nonsensical attack on free trade — sure enough he mentioned a possible trade war with China and how he’ll renegotiate NAFTA.
Luckily, he kept much of his trade nonsense to a minimum, and instead offered a stirring, largely Reaganesque vision of America’s economic future where he would cut taxes ($4.4 trillion of them) and simplify the tax code (from seven to just three brackets).
He would also lower our onerous corporate tax rate to 15 percent, making the United States more competitive globally, and cut job-killing regulations that squeeze corporate profits and cost jobs.
It was a stark contrast to the policies of the past eight years, which Clinton vows to repeat and build upon.
“My opponent’s plan .?.?. offers only more taxing, regulating, more spending and more wealth redistribution — a future of slow growth, declining incomes and dwindling prosperity,” Trump said. “If we lower our taxes, remove destructive regulations, unleash the vast treasure of American energy and negotiate trade deals that put America first, then there is no limit to the number of jobs we can create and the amount of prosperity we can unleash .?.?. Instead of driving jobs and wealth away, America will become the world’s great magnet for innovation and job creation.”
He even took a swipe at the growing chorus of left-wing economists, like Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who have tried to rationalize the current Obama slow-growth economy Clinton wants to accept as the “new normal,” or secular stagnation, that we should all get used to, rather than something produced by left-wing economic dogma that desperately needs to be thrown into the ash heap of history.
“My economic plan rejects the cynicism that says our labor force will keep declining, that our jobs will keep leaving and that our economy can never grow as it did once before,” Trump said.
He added: “We reject the pessimism that says our standard of living can no longer rise, and that all that’s left to do is divide up and redistribute our shrinking resources. Everything that is broken today can be fixed, and every failure can be turned into a great success.”
The politics behind Hillary Clinton’s Obamanomics embrace are obvious: She needs Obama’s help getting elected.
But now she’s forced to defend the indefensible — a point Trump drove home during his speech. Indeed, for every positive report about the Obama economy, like one earlier in the week showing a slight ebbing in income inequality, there are many more demonstrating that Americans still remain massively under-employed and have wages barely budging, as Trump explained.
And he did it with style, at one point quipping that “it used to be cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint” — a reference to the water crisis that engulfed the city that has come to symbolize how government these days is bloated and inefficient.
He couldn’t have said it better.
Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent.