The Republican tax plan demonstrates, yet again, that Trump is deviating from Republican orthodoxy and wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, or at the very least, on capital gains and Wall Street hedge fund guys!
Oh, what's that?
Trump's tax plan is actually a tax hike on the large number of poor and middle class households (and basically a wash on another large segment) and a huge giveaway to the wealthy and, in particular,
provides the largest benefit to the idle, lazy rich rentier class and doesn't raise taxes on capital gains? And by eliminating the estate tax but keeping
stepped-up basis valuation of assets means that inheritors of assets can pay little to
no tax at all when they sell them? So he's actually going to effectively lower capital gains taxes? And
it will result in cuts to Medicare?
Oh. And not only is he not raising taxes on Wall Street, and has filled his cabinet with Wall Street cronies, but
he's working to deregulate them and gut the CFPB?
If only there had been some way to know that Trump was open to entitlement cuts! Like if
he had said he was open to entitlement cuts!
If only there had been some way to know that Trump wouldn't raise taxes on Wall Street assholes and would instead do their bidding! Like if
he had declared his intention to dismantle Dodd-Frank and thus the CFPB during the primaries!
If only there had been some way to know this, other than the fact that he was running as the nominee of a party that had been openly pushing for all these things for years, and that he would rely on a Congressional caucus that was dedicated to that for achieving ego-stroking accomplishments and protection from investigation of his corruption and criminality and would thus need to give them things they want, and that he had no knowledge or understanding of policy and was
content to delegate it to right-wing hacks like idiot "economist" Stephen Moore!
Who could've known Trump, a narcissistic money-grubbing, unionization-opposing, contractor-cheating, sweatshop-outsourcing, compulsively-lying piece of shit, would be in favor of policies that give him and his family millions and billions in tax cuts and screw over average Americans? WHO?
Sadly, there was no way to know whether he was sincere or not when he claimed he was opposed to cuts to Medicare and things of that nature.
Indeed, things were so unclear that it was possible to approvingly cite idiots like Walker Bragman who wrote pieces like this:
A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016
A selection of gems from that
prescient piece:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walker Bragman, walking upper-middle-class brocialist self-parody
Ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.? Not a chance.
[...]
Basically, we will not have immigration reform, but we will not have people rounded up in the streets and deported.
[...]
Progressives and Democrats should be focusing on the election in 2020 because 1) it is a census year — meaning the makeup of the House of Representatives for the following decade will depend on down-ballot voting — and 2) there may be openings on the Supreme Court.
|
This is too idiotic to pass up, even though it was just as obviously stupid back then. His argument for maybe we should let Trump win was that we want to be positioned for 2020 when there
might be a SCOTUS opening... even though there was
already a Supreme Court vacancy in 2016!
Quote:
In 1999, he supported efforts to eliminate our national debt. In 2000 [Trump] supported “tough on crime” policies, called for prosecuting hate crimes against homosexuals, criticized U.S. dealings with China, saying we’re “too eager to please,” and criticized the Communist country for their record on human rights. He has supported the assault weapon ban, waiting periods, and background checks, called for universal health care. and was tentatively pro-collective bargaining, arguing that unions “fight for pay, managers fight for less, and consumers win.” In 2010, he called for government partnering with environmentalists before undertaking “projects.”
[...]
Even today, Trump is to the left of Hillary Clinton on some issues. He supports medical marijuana, while she says “more research” needs to be conducted. He’s against super PACs — instructing those supporting his campaign to return all the money to the donors.
[...]
[Trump] opposed [the war in Iraq]
[...]
Trump's foreign policy talk has alienated our allies like the United Kingdon, and that isn't something to take lightly. However, it has also earned praise from Vladimir Putin.
|
Oh, praise from Putin! How appealing!
Quote:
We have no way of predicting who Trump would appoint, but we can speculate with Hillary Clinton. While she has said that her litmus test for nominees will be commitment to overturning Citizens United v. FEC, there is little reason to trust her [...]
This is the single most important, and inclusive problem today because it affects our ability to deal with every other issue. It is also the one area Democrats are not necessarily better than Republicans.
|
Other than the fact that all of the Democratic appointees on the court voted against
Citizens United, including two appointed by Bill Clinton and the Democrats have been opposed to it from the very day it was handed down. And the fact that Trump announced his list of Federalist Society-approved judicial nominees beforehand and they were all going to be strong
Citizens United supporters.
Quote:
President Barack Obama's recent Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, is one of the judges responsible for the disastrous SpeechNow.org v. FEC ruling which gave us Super PACs, and upheld Citizens United.
|
And here good Walker Bragman reveals he doesn't know the difference between the Supreme Court and a circuit court.
Quote:
In the end, it is doubtful that the more negative aspects of Trump's platform will ever come to pass.
|
Who could've known that this dudebro would be so
comprehensively wrong before the election?!
WHO?