Sorry, I wasn’t clear - the tax cuts were sold on their macroeconomic benefits (“economy will boom,” etc.). My point was that we need a macroeconomic boost all right, but tax cuts won’t do it, so we should have done something other than tax policy. Meaning, I’d rather the political capital have been spent on something other than (ineffective) tax cuts in favor of something else (something other than tax).
Sorry, but I disagree. His donors don’t re-elect him. Any cuts to SS/Medicare will impact red state voters. Considering the badgering about the debt and deficit over the past 10 years, and his party just deciding to add to it, substantially, they’re going to have to go after big dollars…and we all know it’s not coming out of the military’s budget.
Edit: Donald Trump adds $1 trillion to national debt in 14 months - Washington Times
1 Like
And now McMaster is out too. Trump “shaping his cabinet the way he really wants”, or an administration in a panic?
1 Like
Nothing to be alarmed at its a well oiled machine. Stay tuned for next episode of Apprentice Pennsylvania Ave #yourfired #hugeratings
Trump wants sycophants, and McMaster is not that - and the news suggests McMaster is “gruff and condescending” when he briefs Trump. I don’t see how he couldn’t be - how frustrating must it be to take your job on national security deadly seriously, work hard to distill complex issues into executive summaries for a busy boss, and when you apprise him you learn he doesn’t have the slightest clue as to your subject matter, but worse, doesn’t have any energy to learn?
I’m surprised McMaster hasn’t choked him.
But to your question - I think it’s both, actually. I think he’s panicking, and it’s time in his mind to surround himself with bootlickers.
5 Likes
I’m not talking just about his donors. His constituents too.
Very clearly, anyone on public assistance that is voting for Ryan is doing so for reasons other than his goal of slashing entitlements. Where are those people going when he starts slashing? If theyre voting for Ryan under his campaign promises to reel in entitlements, they’re definitely voting for him when he finally delivers.
Maybe once. After they reelect him and his actions start hitting them in the pocket book, it’ll be another matter.
Where do they have to go? To the Dems? The party of ‘take yer guns and socialize yur shit?’
Also, by avoiding corporate welfare and farmer welfare they’ll sleep easy knowing “this is the small price I had to pay to stop all Dem welfare queens collecting 6 figures and ruining 'Murica”
I get the pessimistic view, but Paul Ryan isn’t the only Republican in WI. I also don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that enough republicans vote the other way. If the dems can put up candidates who actually fit with the constituency of their districts (i.e. not CA dems in a red state) like they did with Lamb in PA, you’ll start seeing more movement.
Ok, that makes more sense. I still disagree, but primarily because the small business owners need tax breaks and better growth incentives to truly fuel entrepreneurship. Although, I am not sure what you had in mind instead of tax policy so perhaps I would agree in the end.
I could get that concern. I was thinking from a different angle
1 Like
If this wasn’t Paul Ryan, I’d say there’s a not terrible chance of that happening. Some slack 3rd term guy might see a noticable impact. Paul Ryan? My money is on hells no.
Also it’s not really pessimistic, it’s politics. To get to the national level ala Ryan etc, there has to be some level of “this is how I do as little dmg to my own people as possible while getting what I want/need.”
You see this with Dems going after big business and rich people. At the end of the day, both sides genuinely believe their way is better/more effective/whatever, which ultimately is what causes so much damn chaos.
Despite the “fiscal” now extinct version of the GOP, you’re not going to hear many calls for cutting the defense budget or corporate/farmer welfare to fix our spending problem. Conversely, you won’t hear much from the Dems on the programs their constituents rely on more heavily.
Conservative democrats you say? How’s that going to work in today’s social media, sound bite society? If you’re not full on progressive lib, you hate every person of color and minority.
It works just fine to the people who aren’t slaves to the MSM (not to sound like an uberstoner here).
Contrary to popular belief, libs don’t actually think the GOP is all racist en masse
1 Like
You guys are giving Trump voters way too much credit. Keep in mind these are the same folks that had Obama care & didn’t know it… Believe coal mining is coming back, we gonna have a gold wall that keeps brown folk out, and free budlight for everyone. Obviously y’all haven’t been to wall Mart lately…trust me these folks haven’t masterd nose breathing yet… Trump’s just fine in turd country… Dems best off concentrating on suburban & urban educated folk… don’t waste time or $ on the honey boo boos
1 Like
And if you’re not a full on Trump-supporting redneck, you want to take everyone’s guns and give out free abortions to women a day shy of their due date.
1 Like
Agreed, although this may lend a bit more credence to the former.
1 Like
VIEW HOST: You said, ‘the unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’ And my question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights? And are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before its delivery still has no constitutional rights?
HILLARY CLINTON: Under our law, that is the case. I support Roe v. Wade because I think is important statement about the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision with consultation by whom she chooses… and under the law, and certainly under that decision, that is the way we structure it.
I knew you’d come through.
1 Like