Big companies have never been more profitable. The tax cuts proposed by Trump don’t target the small businesses that are supposedly overburdened by taxes, and in gives the lion’s share of the benefit to the Big companies who we want to tax. High taxes encourage investment in a business, because the investment back into the business reduces the tax burden. Lowering tax burdens has never been shown to increase business investment, and we can clearly see that wage growth has significantly slowed since the tax cutting Reagan era.

Freeing up big business to be even more anti-competitive by giving them more cash and less regulation does not necessarily help the small businesses that the regulation and taxes are supposedly destroying.

As for regulatory burden – trump has listed a few problems he has with regulation. Like Farm Health and safety standards, the lack of which lead to several major health crisis in his restraunts. Or Food Preperation standards like not serving meat 6 months after its prime – again something trump restraunts have a problem with. Or not contaminating streams that feed into larger water sources with toxic chemicals? He has a problem with that, i guess thinking that small streams are independent from bigger sources.

He wants to ‘rank’ saftey standards. So whats more important – Food Storage Temperatures requirements for Beef that help prevent E-Coli outbreaks or Cooking Temperature standards for Pork to help prevent parasite infection?

He complains about regulations for dog food, implying that we shouldn’t care. But pets tend to be well loved companions whose loss is deeply personal and can be as bad as the loss of any other family member. Medical costs for pets are just as bad as the costs for humans, but insurance is a lot harder to come by. Food safety for pet food to prevent readily preventable disease or parasite infections, and prevent feeding your pet toxic chemicals makes sense, and I am unsure why these costs are supposedly not being borne by consumers. I guarantee you if these regulations are repealed you aren’t going to see significant reduction in consumer cost.

It probably fell on deaf ears because his examples of burdensome regulation always seem to have a clear reason they exist, and his details always seem to not match muster. He wants to reduce Tax revenue by nearly a Trillion a year (but he assures us the economy will boom and so he’ll only reduce federal revenues by a Half a trillion a year), while at the same time funding the largest infrastructure investment since the initial creation of the Highway system. I dont understand how he plans to get our trade partners to agree to terms which expressly and intentionally favor the US over their own interests. His economic policy assumes that he can, and if he fails his budget doesn’t work at all.