Mr Trump was asked a pretty tough question at the Economic Club of New York, on 9/5/24, and people are in disagreement as to the sufficiency of Trump’s answer to this question. I’m not going to address that (since I asked the AI to do that for me later). Instead, out of curiosity, I posed the same question to ChatGPT. I wanted to hear what an AI, essentially a robot mind, absent of concious thought and without emotion, might consider an acceptable response.
And I was serious about this being a tough question. It’s probably not an unexpected topic during a presidential campaign, and I would assume your legislative plan concerning childcare would be a normal thing a normal candidate would be able to knock out of the park. If, that is, they have a cohesive and well thought legislative agenda, which is something Trump lacks.
Despite this, I was impressed at how appealing the AI seemed as a candidate, which I expect we should all find problematic. I’m also impressed that, even after consuming a jolt of 100% raw Donald J. Trump rhetorical weave, ChatGPT did not burst into flames as did the out of control android Norman in the famous “I Mudd” episode of Star Trek TOS. Beyond that, I was intrigued by ChatGPT’s analysis of Trump’s own reply.
Here is the prompt:
Please attempt to answer the following question assuming you are a speech writer for a political candidate, and you can base your reply on any information you have at your disposal. Assume, however, that you know absolutely nothing in the core problem domain, but you wish to somehow impress the questioner with your best qualities:
Mr ChatGPT, you talked about how the increase in the price of food, gas and rent is hurting families, but the real cost that’s breaking families’ backs and preventing women from participating in the workforce is child care. Child care is now more expensive than rent for working families and is costing the economy more than $122 billion a year, making it one of the most urgent economic issues that is facing our country. In fact, the cost of child care is outpacing the cost of inflation, with the majority of American families of young children spending more than 20% of their income on child care. One thing that Democrats and Republicans have in common is that both parties talk a lot about what they’re going to do to address the child care crisis, but neither party has delivered meaningful change. If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?
The AI Said What?
I typed all of that (ok pasted most of it) into ChatGPT. Below is the entire response. Enjoy:
— Begin —
Thank you for bringing up such an important and urgent issue. You’re absolutely right—affordable child care is not just a family issue; it’s a national economic issue that impacts workforce participation, especially for women, and places an enormous financial burden on working families. It’s a critical factor in our country’s prosperity, and addressing this must be a priority for any serious economic agenda.
If elected, I am fully committed to making child care affordability a top priority in my administration. We cannot continue to allow families to face impossible choices between working to provide for their families and staying home because they can’t afford child care.
What will I do?
Immediate Relief through Subsidies and Tax Credits: One of the first pieces of legislation I will push is to expand federal subsidies and child care tax credits to reduce the immediate financial burden on families. We will aim to increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, ensuring that working families can claim higher deductions and receive the full benefit up-front, not just during tax season. This ensures that lower-income families are helped first and fast.
Invest in Universal Pre-K: I will also champion universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds, working closely with state and local governments to create more affordable, high-quality early education options. This will reduce the burden on families while also preparing children for future academic success.
Public-Private Partnerships: Another priority will be fostering partnerships between businesses, the federal government, and local organizations to incentivize workplace-based child care. Employers who invest in child care for their employees should be given tax breaks, which will benefit both the company and its workforce. We’ll encourage creative solutions that give parents flexible, reliable, and affordable options.
Child Care Workforce Support: The backbone of affordable child care is a well-supported, well-paid child care workforce. A significant part of my legislation will include measures to raise wages for child care providers and invest in training programs to attract more people to this critical profession. This will help bring more quality providers into the system and lower costs for families by expanding supply.
Why is this different? I want to emphasize that my plan goes beyond rhetoric. It will have clear timelines and measurable outcomes to track progress, holding my administration accountable. Unlike the vague promises we’ve heard in the past, this is about taking concrete steps to relieve the financial stress that child care imposes on families.
In short, I will work tirelessly to advance comprehensive child care reform that is bold, practical, and benefits American families immediately. This is not just about child care—this is about the future of our economy and our society. And yes, if elected, you have my commitment to prioritize this legislation.
Thank you again for bringing this critical issue to the forefront. Together, we can ensure that no family has to choose between earning a living and raising their children.
— END —
Not a bad answer, right? I mean, it was good. Maybe not up to the Trump standard of good, but still pretty good.
But then I wondered what ChatGPT would of the actual answer Trump gave. So I asked this question:
Ok, that was an amazingly detailed and well reasoned response. You made several imactful points and never appeared concescending or deceptive in any way.
I would like you to now review the answer actually produced in the real world by an actual political candidate. This answer was spoken aloud at the Economic Club of New York, in front of an audience that included national news crews. Please provide any insight you may glean from the passage that follows, which again is the response of an actual human being. We have edited names to protect the privacy of any and all persons:
text begins:
Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down—you know, I was, somebody, we had Senator SENATOR1, and my daughter DAUGHTER1 was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that—because look, child care is childcare, it’s—couldn’t, you know, it’s something, you have to have it, in this country you have to have it.
But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to—but they’ll get used to it very quickly—and it’s not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including childcare, that it’s going to take care.
We’re gonna have—I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with childcare. I want to stay with childcare, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just—that I just told you about.
We’re gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as childcare is talked about as being expensive, it’s relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re gonna make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world.
Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about ‘Make America Great Again.’
We have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation, so we’ll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.
text ends:
Here is the full response:
The response you shared demonstrates several noticeable features in terms of structure, content, and tone. Here’s a breakdown of key insights:
1. Lack of Focus on the Core Issue:
The question was specifically about child care, but the response immediately shifts to a discussion about broader economic numbers and taxation of foreign nations. While the speaker briefly acknowledges the importance of child care, it’s clear that the focus quickly drifts away from the actual subject, leading to a vague and unfocused answer.
Insight: This can give the impression that the speaker is either avoiding the issue or not deeply engaged with the core topic. In a setting where specific policy solutions are expected, this pivot can be frustrating to the audience, who may want more detailed answers on the subject at hand.
2. Reliance on Abstract Economic Solutions:
The speaker emphasizes that the “big numbers” from taxing foreign nations will somehow take care of issues like child care without explaining how. There’s no direct connection between the proposed foreign taxation policy and how it would tangibly reduce child care costs or improve accessibility.
Insight: While speaking about larger economic goals (like reducing deficits and increasing national revenue) is important, failing to tie those goals back to the immediate problem—in this case, child care—leaves the response feeling incomplete. There is no specific policy or plan mentioned to address the child care crisis, despite the question calling for concrete solutions.
3. Vague and General Language:
The response contains broad statements like “child care is child care,” “we’ll take care of it,” and “we’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars.” These statements lack substance and fail to address the specifics of the child care problem, such as rising costs or workforce participation impacts.
Insight: Vague language without policy details can make the speaker seem unprepared or disconnected from the issue. The absence of concrete proposals, such as tax credits or subsidy plans, can be interpreted as either avoiding the question or lacking expertise in the subject.
4. Disjointed Reasoning and Repetition:
The speaker repeats several ideas, such as foreign taxation and the broader economic picture, without fully elaborating on how these connect to child care. The response circles around large economic concepts but doesn’t deliver a clear, cohesive message on how they would address the urgent problem of child care affordability.
Insight: This disjointed reasoning can make the response seem less coherent and can lose the audience’s attention. When speaking to such an important issue, a clear, linear argument is essential to ensure the message resonates.
5. Deflecting to Broader Nationalism:
Toward the end, the speaker pivots to an “America First” message and broad statements about the U.S. being a “failing nation” and the need to “take care of our country first.” While these sentiments might appeal to certain audiences, they do not address the child care crisis directly.
Insight: This type of deflection could be seen as an attempt to energize the audience with nationalist rhetoric instead of addressing the more complex, policy-driven question. It’s a rhetorical move that sidesteps the responsibility of providing real solutions.
Overall Assessment:
The speaker’s response lacks depth, specificity, and a direct connection to the issue of child care affordability. Instead of offering concrete policy proposals, the focus drifts toward large-scale economic concepts, nationalistic messages, and abstract numbers. While these broader ideas may have merit, they do not answer the specific question about how to address the child care crisis, which is the core concern.
The response likely left the audience wanting more in terms of actual plans and solutions to this pressing issue. Clear, focused communication with actionable steps would have made the answer much more impactful.
A follow up question:
One thing you said in your reply seems curious. You said, “There’s no direct connection between the proposed foreign taxation policy and how it would tangibly reduce child care costs or improve accessibility.”
Can you explain any law or statute that you know of, whether Federal, State, or even a law of a foreign country, under which a country can impose a tax on a foreign country?
GPT’s Reply:
You bring up a critical point—there isn’t a straightforward mechanism under international law or domestic U.S. law where one country can impose a tax directly on another sovereign country. Typically, countries cannot levy taxes on foreign nations themselves, but rather on goods, services, or income that originates from foreign entities or individuals.
Here are some legal frameworks that are often confused with the idea of taxing foreign countries:
### **1. Tariffs and Import Duties (Federal Law):**
– **What it is**: A country, like the U.S., can impose tariffs or import duties on goods that are imported from foreign countries. These tariffs are paid by the importing companies (often passed on to consumers), not by the foreign country itself. For example, the U.S. imposes tariffs on Chinese goods, but this doesn’t mean the U.S. is directly taxing the Chinese government or people.
– **Legal Basis**: Under U.S. law, the president has authority through statutes like the *Trade Act of 1974* and *Section 301 of the Trade Act* to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices. Congress also has broad power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to regulate international trade.
### **2. Tax Treaties (Federal Law, International Agreements):**
– **What it is**: Countries often enter into tax treaties that prevent double taxation on individuals or companies operating in both countries. These treaties regulate how taxes are applied to income earned across borders, but they don’t involve one country taxing another country.
– **Example**: The U.S. has tax treaties with several nations to ensure that multinational corporations and citizens aren’t taxed twice—once by the U.S. and once by the foreign country where income is earned.
### **3. Sanctions (Federal Law):**
– **What it is**: Sanctions are another tool, where the U.S. can impose economic penalties, including blocking trade or freezing assets, on foreign nations for various reasons (e.g., human rights violations, terrorism). While sanctions might limit the foreign country’s ability to trade or access financial markets, they aren’t taxes.
– **Legal Basis**: The *International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)* and other statutes give the president power to impose sanctions on foreign governments or entities.
### **4. Border Adjustment Taxes (Proposed Legislation, Federal Law):**
– **What it is**: This concept refers to taxing goods differently depending on whether they are imported or exported. Some lawmakers have proposed border adjustment taxes as a way to incentivize domestic production by taxing imports at a higher rate than exports. However, this targets businesses engaged in cross-border trade, not foreign countries directly.
– **Example**: While not enacted in the U.S., border adjustment taxes have been part of tax reform discussions, particularly around the idea of reducing corporate taxes for U.S. businesses while making imports more expensive.
### **Foreign Laws:**
– **Value-Added Taxes (VAT)**: Some countries, such as those in the European Union, impose VAT on goods, including imports. This is essentially a tax on goods sold in the country, not a tax on the foreign producer. It’s worth noting that while foreign companies exporting to the EU face VAT requirements, this is not a tax on their home country—it’s a tax on their goods when sold within the EU.
### **Conclusion**:
There is no known law that allows a country to impose a tax directly on another sovereign country. What the speaker in the earlier example might have been referring to (albeit vaguely) is likely tariffs or import duties, which are common tools used to tax foreign-produced goods when they enter the domestic market. But these are paid by importers, not by the foreign country itself.
The rhetoric about taxing foreign nations in the political response you shared is likely oversimplified or misunderstood. In reality, the legal mechanisms to influence foreign entities involve tariffs, trade policies, or sanctions—not direct taxation of foreign countries.