Trump said the first step towards a solution is "to stop jobs from leaving the United States. The first thing you do is don't let the jobs leave." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/] Part of Trump's reasoning seems to stem from his belief that there are too many taxes and regulations on small businesses. However, Trump has a general lack of focus or specificity regarding tech and innovation policy. If anything, Trump focuses on traditional manufacturing, which he demonstrated through his comments on Monday night. [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123] To learn more about Trump's plan in detail, please see McNair's blog post Trump|Pence and Entrepreneurship. During the debateBroadly, though, Clinton characterized Trump's plan as "trumpedtax cuts rely on the theories of trickle-up trickle down economics". [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/]. Planet Money describes trickle-down economics as a pejorative term for supply-side economics, and as the tax approach famously associated with Ronald Reagan. [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/27/495693013/episode-726-terms-of-the-debate] The idea is that cutting taxes for the wealthy will help the whole economy, because the money that wealthy people are not paying in taxes will be spent in other ways. Rich people will buy things, or hire people, and that money will then trickle down to the rest of the economy. Trickle-down economics' effectiveness is contentious among economists and an issue that divides the candidates in this election. During the debate, Clinton characterized Trump's plan as "trumped-up trickle down economics" [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/] (she's not a fan of this tax policy).
Offering a sharp contrast to Trump, Clinton characterized 's approach to revitalizing the economy as being has several very specifictenants. In fact, she said of her multi-faceted plan at the debate, “I’ve tried to be very specific about what we can and should do." [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/09/27/presidential-debate-an-economy-about-to-take-off-or-a-bubble-about-to-burst/] "Generally, Clinton wishes to engage the government as a private industry partner in implementing innovation policies. [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123] She wishes to grow federal Research and Development pages [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123], and would increase access to capital for small businesses. To learn more about Clinton's plan in detail, please see McNair's blog post Clinton|Kaine and Entrepreneurship. During the debate, Trump attacked didn't say much about the specifics of this plan, but he did attack President Bill Clinton's support of NAFTA in the 1990's. Clinton responded by saying, “I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s,” she said. “Incomes went up for everybody.” [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/09/27/presidential-debate-an-economy-about-to-take-off-or-a-bubble-about-to-burst/]
Though a few shots were fired back and forth throughout the debate, the candidates said very little in the way of substantive economic policy actions they would take in the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation. This is important because there is substantial evidence which has found that investment and development in these fields is key to the country's twenty-first century economic growth. [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123] [http://fortune.com/2016/09/25/presidential-debate-clinton-trump/]