December 24, 2017

"You all just got a lot richer."

Said Trump to his Mar-a-Lago friends on Friday night, the NY Post reports.

What do you think of Trump's statement?
 
pollcode.com free polls

79 comments:

Matt Sablan said...

I guess he rewards his friends and punishes his enemies.

Glen Filthie said...

And we all know liberals would NEVER stoop so low, right Matt?

mockturtle said...

Richer just means more money than you had before, does it not? It need not imply that one was 'rich' before. Someone who has $5 and gets $1 more is richer. By a dollar.

rhhardin said...

Trump is capitalizing people's income.

So long as interest rates are low, it's a huge boost in wealth.

Big Mike said...

@mockturtle, by 20%. Bigly.

Patrick said...

All of the above. Gets people talking, which he wants.

tim in vermont said...

All I know is that if I had listened to what the Democrats were peddling when I was a young man, I would certainly be a lot poorer now, and probably blaming Republicans.

harrogate said...

I’d proclaim Matthew Sablan a #whatabout machine, but I’m sure he has a ready list of other whatabouters.

Of course the new law is all about rewarding the wealthy and punishing the working class and the poor. The middle class got $18 though so it’s all good.

Bad Lieutenant said...

If the economy prospers in consequence, as many expect, then everyone with a share of it will, indeed, get a lot richer. I'd rather have double the income from booming commerce and have whatever taxation (less than double), than have the Fed take a smaller piece of my diminished pie.

Can't any of these people THINK anymore?!?

Hari said...

NY Post, not NYT Post

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Several times, I've heard Trump say that the tax bill would be bad for "people like me." referring of course to people like Trump who are rich.

Matt Sablan said...

CBS This Morning ran three tax payer/families and found all three better off. From lower middle to upper class. So. . hard to believe only the rich will benefit.

Chuck said...

Another Althouse "poll" in which none of the choices are acceptable to me.

My choice as a response:

0 It was Trump, trying to be funny. Trying to be funny, in the clumsy way that Trump channels the news of that day or hour. And as is so often the case, it was revealing in the way that Trump always later regrets. Wherein he has to deny that he said it, and calls the sources liars, and calls the news media "fake news."


The frustrating thing to me about the constant repetition of this pattern is that too often, this is where stories end. There's an alarming quote from Trump, reported based on sources that are both numerous and well-placed; and then the White House denies it; and then nobody steps forward and says, "Well, I am that source. I heard him say it. And I can tell you who else was in the room."

Instead, we get honest guys like Rex Tillerson (as in the "moron" story) who says that he doesn't want to be part of the story. Without denying the substance.

But how true it is, that Trump has become the equivalent of the worst way(s) that Democrats and other liberals ridicule Republicans. Trump is going to be the guy who, within the space of a couple of weeks, is going to be the guy who will be best known for signing a tax bill that dramatically cuts income tax rates for the very wealthy; then ridiculed Haitian immigrants (who "all have AIDS") and Nigerian immigrants ("who will never go back to their huts"); and then prepared to move on savaging his own campaign pledge to not cut Medicaid. A living, breathing parody figure.

How many times does this need to be repeated? It wasn't so long ago that we were arguing about Trump's quote, from multiple sources, that the White House was a "dump." Denied, of course, by Team Trump.

What a fucking liar. Actually, when you go back to "John Miller" and "John Baron," what a sociopath.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Democratic Party Is Rooting Against The American Worker And Our Country’s Success


"We all know the left wing lurch the Democratic Party has taken over the past for years. You saw that with the energized progressive cohorts that flocked to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the 2016 Democratic primaries. Now, with tax reform done, Democrats are licking their lips. They think they can use this as the ICBM to nuke the Republicans in the midterms, and that could happen, but this is all based on the bill’s bad poll numbers. Analysis and even some publications, like The Washington Post, admit that this bill will cut taxes for 80 percent of Americans over the next eight years. It’s a gamble on both sides. Yet, for Democrats, that also includes explaining why they voted against middle class tax relief, betted against the American worker, and want business in general to fail in order to screw Trump."

Matt Sablan said...

Also. A lot of people who are getting only a bit back have greatly simplified taxes and no longer need to hire tax associates. Sure it is only $18 dollars for one example, but if they save a few hours and 60 to 100 in tax services it looks better.

FullMoon said...

Well, he said this in front of real people:
“They’re going to start seeing the results in February. This bill means more take-home pay. It will be an incredible Christmas gift for hard-working Americans. I said I wanted to have it done before
Christmas. We got it done,” Trump told a meeting of his Cabinet members last week.



He said this "CBS reported, citing people sitting near the president’s table who heard the remarks."
You all just got a lot richer,”

No word on who those eavesdropping "people" are. Maybe the usual suspects.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Democrats like punitive taxation. it gives them more power,

Matt Sablan said...

The NYT chart also showed more winners than losers at all income levels. This wu as after they artificially increased everyone's income by including non taxable things like work from home and other benefits into people's income.

The narrative that the poor will suffer is... Not exactly reality based.

MaxedOutMama said...

For most Americans, enhanced job prospects are the primary benefit of this bill. Most Americans sell their labor - they don't have capital, or very little. And better job prospects will give them far more increased income than any tax cut ever could - especially since the poorer cohort already doesn't pay federal income taxes.

But many, indeed most, lower/middle income families will get an actual tax cut through this bill. Still, the tax cut is not the real benefit for them - the real benefit will come through better earning prospects. More hours. Full-time employment, more secure. Benefits for many.

Increased competition for labor can reverse some of the inexorable fall in real incomes most Americans have experienced in the last decades.

A measly two percentage point cut for the rich is a small price to pay for a full-time job with some benefits when one has not been able to get that.

I do regret that some people who are not exactly rich will have less, but that is an inevitable result of trying to correct some of the perverse incentives that were embedded in our tax code.

harrogate said...

I wonder if next year they will look at the dynamics they created this year and say, “well now something just be done about Medicare and Social Security!”???

It’s all a mystery! Like the spitball, “No one knows where this is going!”


Yes, the working class and the poor and the sick are indeed “enemies to be punished” in America.

Matt Sablan said...

But... CBS and the NYT actually studies show the poor will benefit. So... Where is this boogeyman coming from?

tim in vermont said...

The Chinese and European are bitching about a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving for the US. I don't understand Democratic thinking that this is a bad thing.

Matt Sablan said...

Also. Something does need to be done about Social Security and Medicare if we want them to stay solvent. What we do about them requires a level of discussion and give and take neither Trump or the Democrats seem capable of.

bagoh20 said...

This bill is gonna make a lot of wealthy people in blue states quite a bit poorer. For every million in real income your taxable income will be increasing by six figures. That's a huge tax increase on them. It does seem unfair to tax people on money they never get to spend or save. Especially when that money is being taken away by government in the first place and then taxed. Despite all that, I still support the bill.

I can't understand how some states can afford to run their governments without any income taxes and others need billions. Actually I do know. Democrats tend to have unbreakable majority control of those high tax states, so that control must be very expensive to maintain.

The GOP, either by plan or luck, have dealt a penetrating blow to their political enimies with this. Unfortunately, some of us conservatives in blues states are being forced to share their well-deserved pain.

tim in vermont said...

You punish the poor by bringing in massive waves of low cost labor to drive down wages. Just because somebody doesn't believe in supply and demand doesn't make it go away, just ask the Soviets.

Michael K said...

Of course the new law is all about rewarding the wealthy and punishing the working class and the poor. The middle class got $18 though so it’s all good.

The left keeps trying to convince itself that all will be well next November.

Frank Luntz, who missed the whole Trump phenomenon, is pontificating about why the public does not trust the media.

Michael K said...

Yes, the working class and the poor and the sick are indeed “enemies to be punished” in America.

Oh, I don't think the Democrats are that evil. I just think they are ignorant.

harrogate said...

I don’t know where one could get the idea that my comment predicts that “all will be well” next year, but then again, in the Fever Swamps of those who like to ventilate about “The Left,” mental gymnastics know no bounds .

Chuck said...

Althouse, this is a uniquely pervasive form of violating you commenting rule, "[D]on't make personal attacks on other commenters..."

FullMoon said...
Titty Twister obsesses:
"How many times does this need to be repeated?"

Keep repeating it. Maybe you will get lucky and everything will turn to shit like you want it and you can puff your skinny chest out and say "I TOLD YOU SO"

Will you never tire of being an ass?

The "Titty Twister" meme is an ugly one, which was made up by Full Moon. The notion was that I had somehow threatened or proposed to "titty twist" then-FNC anchor (later-MSNBC anchor; still later not-an-anchor) Greta van Susteren. I didn't say that, or write that, and after much back-and-forth which probably detracted from several of your comments pages, Full Moon agreed that I hadn't written it at all, and Full Moon must have made it up.

But time and time and time again, Full Moon and others keep going back to it, bringing it up. As a personal attack on me. No other substantive reason; purely a personal attack on me, usually in response to some thing that I had written that was critical of Trump, without any mention on my part of any other Althouse commenter.

I wanted to point this out as yet another good example of the sorts of posts that are violating the Althouse posting guidelines. Not rare or exceptional violations, but regular and intentional violations.

mockturtle said...

Dickin' reports: Several times, I've heard Trump say that the tax bill would be bad for "people like me." referring of course to people like Trump who are rich.

People like Trump who are rich and live in New York [or NJ or CA]. Breaks my heart.

FullMoon said...

Titty Twister says:
MOMMY, HE'S PICKING ON ME !

Haha.

FullMoon said...

Googled "titty twister" suggestions include Althouse commenter Chuck. Hilarious !

cubanbob said...

Although this tax bill will cost me more money I still support it for the reason that long term it will improve the economy and will put a lot of pressure on state and local governments to slow down or rollback tax increases and spending.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Heh

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
Googled "titty twister" suggestions include Althouse commenter Chuck. Hilarious !

There is a simple reason for that. When I challenged you on this whole distasteful thing that you cerated, you went frantically and extensively Googling me and the phrase "titty twister," no doubt trying to find where I might have initiated it. But as we both know, you came up completely empty.

What's weird to me is that you don't even know or recall how you and you alone made all of this up. That's bizarre. Freaky, that you don't have even that basic self-awareness.

Anyway, while it is natural that your own Google feed is laced with me in connection with "titty twister," it's only you. Because of your obsession. And your frantic, fruitless searching. Nobody else who Googles that phrase gets those results.


Rusty said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"The NYT chart also showed more winners than losers at all income levels. This wu as after they artificially increased everyone's income by including non taxable things like work from home and other benefits into people's income.

The narrative that the poor will suffer is... Not exactly reality based."

But the unfounded belief that it is true keeps the likes of Harrogate and the usual suspects adrenaline pumping. Gotta keep that SJW vibe going and it's getting harder all the time.
Which is why I'm convinced that the usual suspects are all public sector employees. Of course if they are really concerned for the working class and the poor-why they conflate the two is a mystery to me. My hunting buddy who is in the laborers union makes a good six figures with overtime.-they could be reaching into their wallets and not the publics at large.
Anyway, Matt. I hope you and yours have a merry Christmas.
That goes for everyone at Althouse blog.
Including the usual suspects.
"I'm a monkey!" Mick Jagger

FullMoon said...

Twister posits:
Nobody else who Googles that phrase gets those results.
Ha ha ha ! The whole idea was to get you to Google it. How'd I do?
Bark, puppy, bark !

tim in vermont said...

Trump is not allowed to make jokes that use any degree of irony since liberals have made a decision to be deaf to it and use it to attack him. It’s like the guy who supposedly texted on inauguration day that “Now that the Russians have gotten us into office, we have to drop the sanctions today!”

It was a private joke, but it is so easy to ignore that aspect of it, that the joke was made between people who knew the truth, that Russia had nothing to do with it, and that this was just a ploy by the losers to undermine him. I would love to hear a funny comedian who makes zero use of irony. Can anybody give me an example? And Trump’s humor is one of his main weapons, like Reagan. It’s almost as if they are trying to disarm him. Take away humor, and take away Twitter, maybe they can cut him down to size.

Hillary rarely used irony. Result? Nobody liked her, even her own voters.

Unknown said...

> Of course the new law is all about rewarding the wealthy and punishing the working class and the poor.

Obama had 8 years of "spreading it around" - to Acorn, green energy flops, auto bailouts, cash for clunkers...

Result? Worst recovery ever, and most people out of workforce ever.


As Alec Baldwin put it in GGR - "These are the Glengarry leads. But you don't get them! Why? Because giving them to you would be like throwing them away, you wouldn't know what to do with them."

> The middle class got $18 though so it’s all good.

How can the 45% that pay no tax get a tax reduction?

To spark a economic boom, you have to reward the most productive - by definition the highest earners.

The 20% passthrough reduction is a direct reward to the rotary club members - the carpet cleaning company, the sole practice lawyer, the hardware store owner, the pool cleaner, and the AC man.

So i hope everyone at Mara Lago goes home and plans an expansion.

rehajm said...

The left is terrified another thing they believe will be revealed as bullshit. With taxes the debate is over and now are going to find out.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Chuck,
You’ve done so much drunken ad hominem slinging in these comments that you just look like a hypocritical whining little bitch when you cry for Mom. Another reason to believe you’re a prog moby.

Not a personal attack. Just a factual observation.

Limited blogger said...

I just can't understand how letting me keep more of MY money is a bad thing?

Lucien said...

Limited Blogger:

It's not YOUR money! All wealth belongs to the government. We are its subjects, not its masters. That is why the MSM and leftists say that tax cuts will "redistribute" wealth from the poor to the rich. But because the government would have squandered more money on programs for the poor absent a tax cut, and it's all the government's money, it is being taken from the poor and given to the rich. Just like the reasoning that any reduction in a contemplated increase in government spending is a "mean-spirited, draconian cut" according to Dems & MSM (BIRM).

"You didn't build that" prefigures "you didn't earn that".

n.n said...

And in another venue, "You all just got a little richer."

Can't we all just get a little richer?

Krumhorn said...

Lost in all of this...and it was my biggest complaint against Romney who was uniquely equipped to articulate the point...is the fact that we want everyone, particularly rich people, to keep more of what they earn. Rich people are the accredited investors who can (and will) write early stage seed money checks to startups that not only create new jobs but create more wealth.

They are the ones who can afford the inevitable losses so long as they can profit handsomely from their successful angel and VC level investments. THAT’S how to build growth and prosperity. An excellent paper published (oddly enough) by Our Dear Leader’s chief economic advisor and her husband at Berkeley drew a direct causal connection between a 1 percentage point reduction in top marginal tax rates and a 3% growth in GDP as a result in investments. And the reverse was also proven.

I never understand why the rich cannot clearly state this enormously powerful truth. Trump should be repeating this as frequently as he talks about The Wall.

-Krumhorn

Jason said...

You all just got a lot richer.

Democrats are too stupid to realize that that’s a feature, not a bug.

Freder Frederson said...

Our Dear Leader’s chief economic advisor and her husband at Berkeley drew a direct causal connection between a 1 percentage point reduction in top marginal tax rates and a 3% growth in GDP as a result in investments.

I call bullshit on this. Provide a link to the actual study. Tax cuts have never paid for themselves.

To spark a economic boom, you have to reward the most productive - by definition the highest earners.

This is also bullshit. The highest earners are not necessarily the most productive. And even if they were they spend a lot of money on things that do American workers absolutely no good (like buying expensive foreign cars, foreign travel, and hiding assets overseas to avoid taxes). As long ago as 1914, Henry Ford realized that working people, if they have enough money are the ones that drive economic growth.

How can the 45% that pay no tax get a tax reduction?

Well that's easy, you increase the EITC. That was the whole point of Rubio holding out for making a larger proportion of the child tax credit.

But of course this claim is bullshit too. Very few people, if anyone pays no tax. You are referring only to Federal income tax. Quit repeating this bullshit

RMc said...

Another Althouse "poll"
Want to delegitimize something? Just puts scare quotes around it (you know, like "president" and "elected"). Easy-peasy.

Bay Area Guy said...

30-40% of Democrat voters dont pay any taxes.

jaydub said...

I don't understand why people don't believe Scott Adams wrt Trump's tweets. Trump knows exactly what he's doing and how to get all the Harrogates and Chucks talking about the tax cuts - on Christmas eve no less. And the more they talk about what a bad deal the tax cuts are, the more other people break out the calculator to see if they are full of shit. Which they are, so it just reinforces what Trump wants discussed and causes people to validate the cuts for themselves. How may times does Adams have to explain this? My school teacher daughter and her fireman husband have already done the work and are looking at a $2700 savings. As a retiree, I'm looking at around $4500 myself.

Jim at said...

I just can't understand how letting me keep more of MY money is a bad thing?

"Because you're selfish." - Every leftist ever

tim in vermont said...

his is also bullshit. The highest earners are not necessarily the most productive. And even if they were they spend a lot of money on things that do American workers absolutely no good (like buying expensive foreign cars, foreign travel, and hiding assets overseas to avoid taxes

Hmmmm. Can anybody think of any good ways to bring that money back home?

Freder, you are just citing articles of faith, ideas that have never worked anywhere, as if they ended the argument. You are like the proverbial Bible thumper. It’s written in this book, therefore it’s true.

BUMBLE BEE said...

One only has to think back about how the media beasted that Kennedy guy for cutting taxes! Kept him in low regard the rest of his days.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "I call bullshit on this. Provide a link to the actual study. Tax cuts have never paid for themselves."

Lol

Big Mike said...

@Chuck, either man up or get out. You’re giving genuine Republicans a bad image. If you are going to whine like Hillary Clinton at least admit that you voted for her.

Unknown said...


The premise here is that the growth in GDP would have been even more had the taxes remained in place or even increased. Johnny taking cookies out of the stash would have left more. Loaves and fishes. Hush. Sounds like the left is a religious cult. Soon they will be telling us like the Dictator in Rome that forced giving is the only route to salvation. Here, buy this indulgence and sin no more, all sex including daydreaming, lusting in my heart and esp. wet dreams are violence against women.

Michael K said...

And even if they were they spend a lot of money on things that do American workers absolutely no good (like buying expensive foreign cars

Yeah Field Marshall Freder, let's look at the example of expensive boats, shall we ?

THis is like shootingnfish in a barrel.

I have been in the boat business since 1972. The luxury tax that came into effect this year is in general unfair, but as it pertains to boats, grossly so. My industry was singled out and is being crushed by this tax. This will translate into lost jobs for about 600,000 people if something is not done quickly.

The luxury tax on new boats is a cruel hoax played on the public at the expense of those who work in the industry. The United States boat industry, and the 600,000 workers employed directly in manufacturing, were served as the sacrificial lamb to appease those who insisted on soaking the rich during Federal budget negotiations.


That was fun. Let's do Capital Gains Tax, shall we ?

Fabi said...

Titty Twister didn't get a Christmas Eve reprieve from the DNC?

Unknown said...

We do know that under a regime like O-care we'd never had the Billion-dollar salaries and incentives and Millionaires willing to die horrible and painful deaths as experimental victims to speed along the early heart lung machines. And the Billions of dollars of tax revenues raised as sky trains of 747s flew patients into Houston and Dallas.Here'some dope dope, see you in the next life in fifty or one hundred years. Sure. what you don't know could have existed without government interference in the market can't be missed. Which is why Russia was set on taking back Berlin, it was a cancer that would eventually kill them once the public understood what they could have had.

Freder Frederson said...

Yeah Field Marshall Freder, let's look at the example of expensive boats, shall we ?

What does buying boats from an American boatbuilder have to do with my point. You ignored the adjective "foreign" in order to make an irrelevant point. I am not arguing that rich people never buy American, that would be stupid.

Freder Frederson said...

"Lol"

This is not a response to my query. Show me a tax cut that paid for itself (that is the increased revenue from economic growth made up for the tax revenue lost) and I will concede the point. Otherwise, stfu.

Michael K said...

Let's look at GDP.

Reagan average growth of GDP was Ronald Reagan, 3.5%

The GDP in 1984 was over 6%. That why he won 49 states.

Reagan had a Democrat Congress which let him win the cold war if he allowed them to continue to spend.

Then we have the matter of revenue.

And after 1982, Reagan's faith was rewarded with a long and strong economic boom, driven by the greatest bull market seen on Wall Street since the 1920s. The Reagan Era, which began in such dire circumstances, would end up being remembered as a period of great prosperity.

Before prosperity, however, there would be a bit more pain.

Through most of the first two years of Reagan's first term, Americans already battered by the stagflation of the 1970s had to endure the sharpest recession in decades. The severity of the downturn was largely a consequence of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker's determination to end the devastating inflationary trends of the 1970s by any means necessary.

Following the monetarist teachings of influential University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, Volcker resolved to "slay the inflationary dragon" by sharply curtailing the growth of the money supply. That monetary contraction, imposed starting in 1980, succeeded in its primary objective. The inflation rate fell from a devastating high of 13.5% in 1980 to just 3.2% by 1983.


Also:

Once in office, however, Reagan found it impossible to deliver on his promises. The largest chunk of the federal budget went to pay for Social Security and Medicare, which provide retirement income and healthcare for the elderly, and are the two most popular government social programs in American history. While Reagan had long criticized both, he found it politically impossible to dismantle them.

After Social Security and Medicare, the next largest government expense was the military—and Reagan, a staunch Cold Warrior, never considered cutting defense spending, and instead, increased it substantially.


With Social Security reform, the revenue from tax cuts was hidden but it was still substantial.

Clinton and the Congress in the 1990s raided Social Security to "balance the Budget" and the trust fund will run out in a few years.

The money that came in from the economy got devoted to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Krumhorn said...

Our Dear Leader’s chief economic advisor and her husband at Berkeley drew a direct causal connection between a 1 percentage point reduction in top marginal tax rates and a 3% growth in GDP as a result in investments.

I call bullshit on this. Provide a link to the actual study. Tax cuts have never paid for themselves.


My pleasure. After you have read this paper that was published in the American Economic Review in June 2010, I want you to step a little closer so that I might taste your tears.

- Krumhorn

Kevin said...

Trump was just channeling his inner Oprah:

You get a tax cut! And you get a tax cut! And you...

Bruce Hayden said...

“Following the monetarist teachings of influential University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, Volcker resolved to "slay the inflationary dragon" by sharply curtailing the growth of the money supply. That monetary contraction, imposed starting in 1980, succeeded in its primary objective. The inflation rate fell from a devastating high of 13.5% in 1980 to just 3.2% by 1983.”

I think that no matter how well intentioned, that was a misreading of Friedman and his theory about monetary policy. One of the reasons that printing money (i.e. increasing the money supply) provides a short term stimulus is that everyone feels like they have more money, even though it just is worth a bit less. Of course, the expectation of inflation quickly catches up to actual inflation, and a bigger and bigger monetary stimulus is required as time goes on. But, of course, actual inflation always catches up, which is where we found ourselves during the Carter era stagflation. We had almost runaway inflation, but it no longer provided the short term stimulus effect that it had earlier. In any case, the whole thing works in reverse, with a reduction in the money supply working to tamp down the economy short term, until deflationary expectations catch up to reality. Except this time they pulled a lot of the extra money was pulled out of the economy fairly quickly, and the result, as expected, was a recession. They might have been able to avoid the shock to the economy if they had gradually reduced the money supply, instead of doing so so quickly.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Clinton and the Congress in the 1990s raided Social Security to "balance the Budget" and the trust fund will run out in a few years.”

Obama and his buddies in Congress raided Medicare to help fund Obamacare, and that trust fund will probably run out even more quickly.

Kevin said...

What a fucking liar. Actually, when you go back to "John Miller" and "John Baron," what a sociopath.

Be nice to Chuck, people. With every Trump win his beloved GOPe is being slowly and carefully put out to pasture.

People like Glenn Beck, George Will, Jen Rubin, Bret Stephens, David Frum, Ana Navarro, John Kasich, Bush 41, Bush 43, and Bush (never) - the people he says he's like - have lost their influence and aren't going to get it back. Ever.

It doesn't matter if Trump cuts taxes or balances the budget or reaches 5% GDP or fixes all the infrastructure or gets KJU to give up his weapons. It doesn't matter if he out-Reagans the Gipper himself. Trump will never be a "true Republican" because all the people he has spent his life listening to for advice and guidance have told him Trump can never be one.

Like when Obama beat Hillay and suddenly the Clintons no longer controlled the party, Chuck finds himself suddenly out of the inner circles of power. The people I listed can still tell war stories, but they can no longer pick up a phone and be heard. They as relevant to the debate as a coal miner in West Virginia or a fisherman in Maine.

They have become ... mere citizens. Ordinary people along with the rest of us. The Gods have fallen to Earth.

He's hurting, people. And at some point you have to stop getting irritated by his refusal to go along and just walk over and give him a hug. Stop getting mad that he's making a ruckus, remember the wars he fought for his country at the MI polling places, and give the old veteran a hug.

Big Mike said...

It's quarter after six and according to the poll there are 39 certifiable lunatics among the Althouse readers.

Big Mike said...

@Kevin, what you wrote implies that Chuck is for real. Not all of us believe that.

narciso said...

Yes that seems a misinterpretation of means:
blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2012/12/14/review-every-monetary-system-needs-a-paul-volcker

Quaestor said...

If one believes the purpose of taxation is to encourage the rich to sequester their wealth in overseas tax havens and to make it increasingly difficult for the poor to find employment and render them increasingly dependent on welfare, then, yes, Trump's tax policy is bad.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

Not all of us believe that.

Chuck is for real all right in the sense that there is an afflicted and febrile brain behind the persona. What we don't believe is the proffered biography.

Drago said...

Field Marshall Freder: "This is not a response to my query."

You dont deserve a response you dime store marxist.

There is abundant evidemce but whats the point of sharing with you. You are as likely to read it or understand it as a Hugo Chavez would have been.

The Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts both resulted in sufficiently increased revenues to the federal treasury, but i categorically reject your underlying socialist premise that all income belongs to the federal govt and any tax cuts have to "pay for themselves".

So you can go stfu yourself, unless you want to take a few more minutes and provide all with mirth by attempting to hold forth authoritatively again on military matters....and failing hilariously.

Unknown said...

Option D: Since I'm not driven by resentment of others, I don't care what happens to rich people and their wealth. The tax changes help me and my friends and family, that's all I care about.

val said...

I dont believe he said it.

val said...

I dont believe he said it.

val said...

I dont believe he said it.

Trumpit said...

"Embarrassingly reveals the GOP tax bill was intended to help the rich get richer."

I would have said "Brazenly reveals..." or "Shamelessly reveals..." Brazen and shameless are synonyms. The GOP is made up of a horrid and shameless bunch of criminals. They show little embarrassment for their crimes against the hardworking middle class. They are essentially greedy sociopaths. They don't care who they hurt. They belong in jail not running the country.