T Nation

The GOP: Brilliant SOB's!

As I looked at the GOP taking those photo OPS with Trump today (I think the one with them all flanking the President on both sides and up the stairs was worthy of a Pulitzer…)…I came to an epiphany…

“What BRILLIANT Som’ Bitches these guys are!”

(and TRUMP was supposed to be the “smart” one? Not hardly…)

Trump is like the drunk, drug-addicted, partying heir to the Family Fortune…and the GOP are the guys actually running the business.

Some of his harshest critics were actually standing there with (as they say in the South) “shit-eating” grins on their faces as they let Trump wallow in the Limelight…because they knew…oh yes…they knew that despite having a buffoon in the White House…for the most part, they were getting most of their agenda accomplished…

And they are, folks…

Federal judges…environmental and regulatory cutbacks…immigration reform…you name it.

And now the ultimate GOP hard-on…Tax Cuts…

(Yeah, yeah, yeah…there was that Healthcare thing…and yeah, we worry about the deficit when we are not in power…but hey! The DEMS can bite me!).

As McConnell …(the greatest Fan-boy the President has…right) said today…with a smile as big as a Kentucky Sunrise:

THANK YOU, Mr. President!”


Brilliant…just brilliant…

(McConnell to Self…):

"SMILE"!…(what a dumbass…)…“SMILE”!…(what a dumbass…)…“SMILE”!

(What the heck is Pence doing, @thehebrewhero? Hummmmm…)

1 Like


(Ryan to Self…):

(“WUH”??? What the hell…it’s Christmas…I’m outa’ here…!)



I found it!

(Pulitzer! Right? )

1 Like

Not sure how brilliant it is. This bill is horribly unpopular and I doubt anyone watching this strokefest on the White House lawn isn’t going to also watch the nightly news.

And while many republicans may laugh at this, they really, really shouldn’t.

1 Like

^This. Tax plan seems brilliant for the companies that actually made it happen. Not so brilliant for the Congressmen/women that have more than 1 election cycle left in them.

That being said, I 100% hope I’m dead wrong on this tax bill, and that I’m forced to eat my words.

1 Like

What’s unpopular? The lower taxes on people or corporations? Simplifying the tax code? Ending the absolute failure that was the “global” tax system?

Do people want us to pay more in taxes than other G20 nations? I’m confused.

1 Like

Currently I believe it’s the inevitable slashing on entitlement programs that are spawned by the tax bill. It’s pretty paper thin to see through the reasoning people are upset.

edit: or the fucking with of the healthcare system after Congress shit the bed with it so hard

It’s largely viewed as a giveaway to corporations and the wealthy, with a pittance thrown towards the middle class. I was all for simplifying the corporate tax code and lowering the rate provided all of the loopholes are closed. Very few corps pay 35%, with the average for large companies being the mid-teens, I believe.

Considering how hastily this was thrown together, though, I imagine a lot of those loopholes were not closed and we’re going to be learning about surprises over the coming months.

The other side of this is that people simply do not believe trickle-down economics works (see Kansas & Louisiana). We have low interest rates and unemployment, the stock market’s been on a tear for years and corporations are already sitting on mountains of cash. (This tax cut will result in a 14% increase to the bottom line of the largest banks.)

Add in to this, of course, that people expect entitlements to be on the block next, as Fury mentions. We’ll see how this all pans out, but I would color people very skeptical for now.


I don’t believe this is inevitable. No EU country had reduced Corp tax receipts from their cuts. Ireland grew 4 times as much when it dropped to 12.5% between 1995 and 2017 than it had between 1965-95. I’ll wait and see, but I don’t buy this talking point at present.

The US just ended major EU tax arbitrage in this bill. Barring a recession, I cannot see this doing anything other than good things for overall US growth.

1 Like

I do, as they’ve already explicitly stated they’re headed for entitlements next. To your point I guess that doesn’t actually mean anything, but since they’ve created a scenario where it’s going to be even more necessary to cut entitlements, actually said they plan to cut them, and are the party whom historically targets entitlements, it feels pretty inevitable.


“We’re going to have to get back next year at entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit,” Ryan said during an appearance on Ross Kaminsky’s talk radio show. "… Frankly, it’s the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that’s really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.”

This is seperate to whether the Corp tax cut will expand deficit spending. This has been Ryan’s reason for being for his entire political life.

No EU country has suffered a shortfall from
Corporate tax cuts in my memory.
U.K.- receipts went up
Ireland- way up
Germany- receipts up
Denmark-way up
Switzerland- never had them high. Best living standards on earth. (Not advancing that as causative, but then not suffering an ‘Armageddon’ deserves a mention.)

It being technically separate doesn’t matter. People see a tax bill that takes entitlements from “we should probably do something” to “we absolutely have to do something.”

Republicans forced the hand on entitlements. It 100% worked. Doesn’t mean people are going to be happy about it.

IIRC, America suffered a pretty big one when Reagan did it, in America. Apples to apples says trickle down doesn’t work in the USA.

If I am wrong I’ll happily offer a mea culpa, but recent experience in developed countries is not that.

Which I totally get. I’m very happy these countries have flourished in light of lower corp taxes. These countries also didn’t have USA level entitlement programs.

While I still 100% hope I’m wrong re: taxes and re: cutting entitlements, the GOPs explicit words say taxes are being targeted for rich people and entitlements are going to be cut.

As do I, maybe American exceptionalism applies here to. If in 2 years I am wrong on the receipts, I’ll happily bow on this one. Till then, I’ll await the receipts and the results.

As a percentage of GDP or total? Just want to clarify the argument. Because I think Germany and the U.K. would definitely be competitive as a percentage of GDP

You are mistaken. Tax receipts as a % of GDP went down (because GDP grew alot). Actual tax receipts went up 60%.

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%);

During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars), averaging 3.4% annual growth in constant dollars.[34] This reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6%, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988

According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan’s two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of income taxes (not including payroll taxes) to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of income tax revenue.[54]

The misery index, defined as the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate, shrank from 19.33 when he began his administration to 9.72 when he left, the greatest improvement record for a President since Harry S. Truman left office.[40] In terms of American households, the percentage of total households making less than $10,000 a year (in real 2007 dollars) shrank from 8.8% in 1980 to 8.3% in 1988 while the percentage of households making over $75,000 went from 20.2% to 25.7% during that period, both signs of progress.[41]

Real wages were lower following the recession, while real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period.[44][45] But, using data of U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, real U.S. GDP in 2009-chained dollars divided by the U.S. population, shows that real per-capita GDP went from $26,196.55 in the 4th quarter of 1976 to $28,447.21 4th quarter of 1980, a real increase of 8.6% during President Carter’s four years. President Reagan’s eight years in office saw per-capita GDP grow another 23.4% to $35,097.83.[46]

Only one big problem, they never cut spending.

Spending during the years Reagan budgeted (FY 1982–89) averaged 21.6% GDP, roughly tied with President Obama for the highest among any recent President. Each faced a severe recession early in their administration. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2.052 trillion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.[6]:143 The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 11% in 1982, then declined to 5% in 1988. The inflation rate declined from 10% in 1980 to 4% in 1988.[2]

1 Like

If this occurs again, I have 0 complaints.


Reagan tax cuts just DIDN’T have the effect many GOP’ers believe. Those stats are the talking points that intentionally leave out all the middle ground and context.

Totally hope I’m wrong though. Fingers crossed all the big corp execs that have been fucking over their employees for years will see the light.


1 Like