Tax Debate 2017 and Trickle Down

I recently got into a debate on Trickle Down Economics with a good friend - Again. Let's just call this person Goodfriend to make it easier to read the below.

The debate was precipitated by a Twitter post from

Alec MacGillisVerified account

@AlecMacGillis

Deep in the post was the primary article by WSJ writer Galston here

This was mostly a memorial to the Ford exec Arjay Miller that looks at his job in the long term.
The point I wished to pursue was that trickle down will not work and therefore any tax cuts will only go to the wealthy.

My detailed reply to Goodfriend


1-The premise of the article is that because the top 15 executives did this the policy failed. But what time period is he looking at? If it is the Reagan (bi partisan) tax cut, then that was a huge success.

2- Our current Corp. tax rate is uncompetitive. Highest in the word and we tax income internationally/worldwide so if Coke makes $ in China we tax them as if that coke was sold in the US. This creates a cash horde overseas. All other countries tax in the country. This is known as a territorial taxation system. For example Samsung does not get taxed on TVs sold in the US.

3- It might take a few years to see a benefit. CEOs should be free to invest in the US or not if that works for them.

4- Even if the overseas money goes to execs, shareholders and dividends a lot of that money will find its way into the economy and produce benefits. Better than it staying offshore and doing nothing for the country.

5- Trickle Down is the Dem epithet for the free market economy where benefits flow to all when there is economic freedom.

The reply from Goodfriend to this was as follows

There’s no proof that the money goes back into the economy, while there is proof the money gets stuck overseas or in their accounts or used to buy more shares of their corp

If there is proof I’d love to see it also, I'd be curious to hear how raising taxes on lower and middle income Americans to pay for corporate taxes cuts results in more money in the economy, because lower and middle income people are the ones that would immediately spend it and put it back in the economy, likely in their own communities rather than offshore accounts or traded to other already wealthy people.

My reply to Goodfriend

http://www.heritage.org/node/18247/print-display


Rather than a discussion of the above article I got another article to read

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/09_Effects_Income_Tax_Changes_Economic_Growth_Gale_Samwick.pdf

This sort of sending articles back and forth doesn't give the time to actually debate one topic. I don't like it as it puts off the actual debate.
Rather than argue how to debate I am going to respond to the article by Brookings and then refer back to the proof I was requested to provide in the Heritage piece.
Here are the points raised and my responses.


1) this seems to be a better argued and researched paper on the topic

REPLY: In the abstract and saw this section.
" if the tax cuts are not financed by immediate spending cuts they will likely also result in an increased federal budget deficit"
This follows many of the left's criticisms. I find it a bit to strict because there is no allowance for increased economic growth due to lower taxes and less regulation.
The CBO does not, by mandate, speculate on growth as a result of policy. The CBO and many on the left treats tax cuts based on a fixed income assumptions.
There are so many caveats in this article it is hard to know where to begin. For example:
" A fair assessment would conclude that well designed tax policies have the potential to raise economic growth, but there are many stumbling blocks along the way and certainly no guarantee that all tax changes will improve economic performance."
Economics is almost impossible to test due to business cycles, wars, consumer mood you name it.

What I sent you was an abstract from a speech, not a policy paper. The economic growth in jobs, GDP and (ironically) government revenues is the proof you asked for. There were three distinct periods where tax cuts for the rich did help the poor and the overall economy. The all ships rise on a incoming tide arguement. In the 1920s, the tax cuts from 70% to 25%, Kennedy tax reduction from 90% down to 70% and Reagan tax cuts in in 1981 from 70% to 50% and again in 1986 to 28%.

2) I’m in favor of tax cuts but i think that it’s disingenuous to argue that corporate tax cuts will boost the economy if it is paired with tax increases to the lower and middle class, it may be good for the stock market but that’s not the same thing as being good for the economy. GDP can go up masking long term problems of income inequality. It seems to me like this tax plan is sure way to increase the already high wealth gap in our country

REPLY: Disingenuous is a synonym for dishonest. The honesty of the intentions should be assumed until proven otherwise.
I don't think that the pairing is necessarily the main point of this tax reform. The first thing to solve is our corporate tax rate. We have the world's highest corporate tax rate and it is riddled with special carve outs and exemptions that only some industries receive. The stock market is a barometer that tells what people think may happen. Growth in the economy (profits and jobs and personal income) follows the market by a year or two. If tax reform does not pass expect a big market decline. If it passes expect a large advance.

Income inequality cannot be solved easily nor should government take radical steps to do so as unintended consequences will surely flow. The Obama administration from 2010 to 20018 sought to reduce income inequality and instead it increased greatly while giving around zero wage growth to the middle and lower income classes. The main points of the paper I provided show that government revenue actually grows with lower tax rates and also that the share paid by the wealthy increases relative to the burden on the middle class. Counter intuitive but that's what happened in each of these periods.
More recently Clinton cut the capital gains rate and, guess what, government revenue climbed. I watched an ABC debate (Hillary versus Obama) where Charlie Gibson asked the candidate if he would raise the capital gains tax on the wealthy, even if this policy resulted in lower revenue for the government. Obama answered: “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” It was that point that I knew he was an idiot and could not be trusted. Up to that point I had been a admirer. I loved his keynote speech at the Dem convention when he made his debut; "there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America". That turned out to be truly Disingenuous.

I recommend this WAPO opinion piece for background on fairness and Obamas 2008 debate position on tax fairness regardless of the cost.

Final point - I just saw a interview with Steve Mnuchin (Fox New Sunday). He spoke on corporate tax rates being lowered as well as changing the US Corporate tax system from an International basis to a territorial basis. He said these HAVE to be permanent otherwise they will have no effect on corporate behavior. Because of the Byrd rule in the senate and the politics of reconciliation (where only 51 votes are required) the personal rates have to last only until 2025 when hopefully, if the economy grows, they can become permanent which takes 60 votes. A quick search on this VERY IMPORTANT FACT does not show it at all or if it does it shows it in an exclusively negative light. After all it is the Dems lock step refusal to participate in the process that makes this a problem. More people know about his wife than about the facts surrounding tax reform. Thanks Google Search for showing what is really important.

This July Brookings article is instructive.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/can-republicans-thread-the-needle-on-tax-policy/

It shows how difficult this will be to do, especially with not all 52 Republicans actually Republicans. Imagine the party of lower taxes voting to NOT lower taxes.

Best of the Web - Schumer’s ‘Compromise’: No Tax Cuts

Schumer’s ‘Compromise’: No Tax Cuts 

Senate Democrats save negotiating time by ruling out everything not on their agenda.

Captaion: Senate Minority Leader Democrat Chuck Schumer holding a copy of a letter he sent to Republican leaders on Tuesday.

By James Freeman Aug. 1, 2017 4:53 p.m. ET


“After Health Care Victory, Senate Democrats Seek Compromise on Tax Plan,” announces a New York Times headline today. Doesn’t that sound refreshing? Especially after the unanimous refusal of Democrats to support any of the three Senate bills considered last week to address the failure of ObamaCare, it would certainly be a welcome change to see a bipartisan approach to boosting economic growth. But the Times allows in paragraph six that “bipartisanship will not come easy,” which turns out to be more accurate than the headline.

To their credit, Senate Democrats have generously decided to save everyone’s time by ruling out anything that deviates from their agenda of raising more government revenue and maintaining high marginal tax rates. In a six-paragraph note on “tax reform” signed by 45 of the Senate’s 48 Democrats, the pols don’t propose any particular measures to simplify or cut anyone’s taxes. But the signers, who include Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, make clear who should definitely not get a tax cut. The Democrats endorse an ill-advised comment by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin —which he later walked back—that there would be ”no absolute tax cut for the upper class.”

Depending on how one defines “upper class,” this could rule out relief for Americans paying nearly all of the country’s federal individual income taxes. In February the Tax Foundation highlighted IRS data showing that the top one percent of income earners pay more than 39% of income taxes, and the top 5% pay nearly 60%. The government has become so efficient at soaking the one percent—even as Democrats have become expert in stoking hatred against this hard-working group—that even a die-hard Sandernista would have to be impressed. The Tax Foundation explains:

In 2014, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $543 billion, or 39.48 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $400 billion, or 29.12 percent of all income taxes.

You’d never know it from the standard harangues from Democrats about the rich paying their fair share, but the top quarter of income earners, which is perhaps a reasonable definition of the “upper class,” pay nearly 87% of federal income taxes. If the party’s most hysterical class warriors want to rule out relief for the top half of U.S. income earners, then they’re talking about the group paying more than 97% of income taxes. The bottom half of income earners are of course paying much less, but would surely welcome tax cuts just like people in higher brackets. They’re getting no assurances from Democrats. Today’s letter does vaguely call for “real relief for working families,” but elsewhere in the letter the Democrats signal that the status quo is acceptable when they write, “we believe that tax reform should not increase the tax burden on the middle class.”

Just in case Republicans hadn’t gotten the point that the signatories had no interest in tax relief, the Democratic lawmakers rejected any “deficit-financed tax cut,” suggested no willingness to accept spending cuts to offset such a cut and added that “tax reform should be focused on providing a revenue base.”

 With the legislative calendar slipping away, Republicans should appreciate the favor they’ve just been done. As they draft a plan to boost economic growth and provide taxpayer relief, GOP lawmakers now know that the three Democrats who didn’t sign today’s letter—coincidentally all up for re-election in states Donald Trump won in 2016—are the only ones interested in negotiating. From the Wall Street Journal

Peggy Noonan: House Republicans Repeat an Obama Error - with links to important articles

Don't miss the links to the Caldwell and Eberstadt important articles

By

Peggy Noonan

March 9, 2017 6:01 p.m. ET

761 COMMENTS

Washington
It is challenging for important Republicans on Capitol Hill now. They are leading their party at a time when it is changing and the country has changed. There are fissures in terms of what they believe and what they want. There is no shared, overarching sense of the meaning and purpose of the Republican Party, no agreed-upon blueprint from which to operate.

Most of them know that something substantial happened in 2016, when half, and then considerably more than half, of the Republican base followed Donald Trump, along with a great many Democrats. But they are still uncertain of the meaning of the event. I suggested to a Capitol Hill figure last week that it was a populist wave and the future of the Republican Party is moderate populism. He answered that in fact the president, in his famous rallies, was often simply road-testing ideas and applause lines, adopting what got cheers and dropping what didn’t. He’d personally seen this. I thought: I’m sure you saw what you saw, but what you are noting is Mr. Trump’s cynicism when what matters is what the crowds agreed with—what they applauded. When he would say, seemingly in passing, that he won’t touch Medicare or Social Security, people are in enough trouble and a deal’s a deal, everyone—Republicans, Democrats—cheered. Because they are in financial trouble. And because they don’t trust Washington to be fair or wise in cutting or rejiggering essential programs.

But the Hill figure did not believe that 2016 marked a change in political direction, and I suppose that’s lucky for him, because if he followed the prompting of a Trumpian base, his donors would not like it.

Surely it is reasonable to conclude a big, burgeoning hunk of voters came forward in 2016 with a new definition of what popular, centrist GOP policies would look like—more economically nationalist and more socially and economically populist.

The GOP’s first big legislative endeavor, the repeal of ObamaCare, has been understood as a classic fight between party leadership and the more conservative and libertarian wings, and there’s truth in that. I wonder if it will not also become a struggle between the leadership and the Trumpian core.
The new bill lacks an air of appropriate crisis, a sense that it is responsive to this moment. I criticize it not from the right but I suppose the left: Eight years ago, I argued ObamaCare would be an unmitigated mess: “The system will be overwhelmed, the government won’t be able to execute, the costs will be huge.” I urged Mr. Obama to focus instead on Medicare; attack waste, fraud and abuse; come up with far-sighted cost saving measures—and, once this was accomplished with bipartisan support, make one little change: open the program to the uninsured under 65. Expensive? Yes. But simpler, cleaner, and better than destroying the health insurance system. The 2008 crash had occurred less than a year before. That was the moment American insecurity began to surge and reasonable pessimism take hold.

Is it so different now?

The two great sociocultural documents of this moment are by the political economist Nicholas Eberstadt and the journalist Christopher Caldwell .
Mr. Eberstadt, in a Commentary piece titled “Our Miserable 21st Century,” writes that the year 2000 marked a grim milestone: “The Great American Escalator, which had lifted successive generations of Americans to ever higher standards of living and levels of social well-being, broke down around then—and broke down very badly.” He traces the economic factors, including dismal labor-force trends: “The plain fact is that 21st-century America has witnessed a dreadful collapse of work.” The top is doing fine but not the bottom: “21st-century America has somehow managed to produce markedly more wealth for its wealth-holders even as it provided markedly less work for its workers.”
Physical health has deteriorated for a significant swath of white America, “thanks in large part to drug and alcohol abuse. All this sounds a little too close for comfort to the story of modern Russia, with its devastating vodka- and drug-binging health setbacks. Yes: It can happen here, and it has. Welcome to our new America.”

He quotes a 2016 study reporting that nearly half of all prime-working-age male labor-force dropouts—some seven million men—take pain medication daily. That “adds a poignant and immensely sad detail to this portrait of daily life in 21st-century America: In our mind’s eye we can now picture many millions of un-working men in the prime of life, out of work and not looking for jobs, sitting in front of screens—stoned.”

Mr. Caldwell, in First Things, focuses on the narcotics epidemic: “The scale of the present wave of heroin and opioid abuse is unprecedented. Fifty-two thousand Americans died of overdoses in 2015—about four times as many as died from gun homicides and half again as many as died in car accidents.” Salisbury, Mass., population 8,000, lost one resident in the Vietnam War. “It has lost fifteen to heroin in the last two years.” In four hours last summer 28 people in Huntington, W.Va., population 49,000, overdosed.

The death toll “far eclipses” that of every previous drug crisis. Mr. Trump’s willingness at least to speak of the crisis surely helped him win, Mr. Caldwell observes: “In his inaugural address, President Trump referred to the drug epidemic (among other problems) as ‘carnage.’ Those who call the word an irresponsible exaggeration are wrong.”

These two great pieces in great magazines deserve the deep, focused and alarmed attention of policy makers. We are in the midst of the kind of crises that can do nations in. It is pleasant to chirp, as Speaker Paul Ryan does, of “choice” and “competition” and an end to “paternalistic” thinking on health care. Is it responsive to the moment? Or does it sound like old lyrics from an old hymnal?
I close with Tucker Carlson’s Wednesday night Fox News interview with Mr. Ryan. It cut to the political heart of the matter.

Mr. Carlson questioned the new bill’s elimination of a tax on wealthy investors. “Looking at the last election, was the message of that election really, ‘We need to help investors?’ I mean, the Dow is over 20,000. Are they really the group that needs the help?”
Mr. Ryan answered that the tax had been imposed by ObamaCare. “The trillion-dollar tax cut that this bill represents—that is part of the trillion-dollar tax increase that was in ObamaCare to finance ObamaCare.” It deserves repeal: “It’s bad for economic growth.”

Mr. Carlson: “But the overview here is that all the wealth, basically, in the last 10 years, has stuck to the top end. That’s one of the reasons we’ve had all the political turmoil, as you know. And so, kind of a hard sell to say ‘Yeah, we’re gonna repeal ObamaCare, but we’re gonna send more money to the people who’ve already gotten the richest over the last 10 years.’ I mean, that’s what this does, no? I’m not a leftist, it’s just—that’s true.”

“I’m not that concerned about it,” Mr. Ryan replied. Republicans promised to repeal ObamaCare, and they are.

Maybe he should be concerned.

Copyright ©2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Monitoring Your Credit Score
and Credit Report

Original Post
http://guides.wsj.com/personal-finance/credit/how-to-monitor-your-credit-score-and-credit-report/

• Tips

  • You're entitled to one free credit report, once a year, from each of the three credit reporting agencies -- Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.
  • Higher FICO scores mean lower interest rates and can save you thousands of dollars. Try to boost your score before you apply for a loan.
  • Order your free credit report at ANNUALcreditreport.com. Avoid sites like freecreditreport.com. 
  
  Set up a calendar alert and run one of the three report every 4 months.
  
  Bad credit can result in unfavorable interest rates that cost you thousands when you take out a mortgage, a car loan or a student loan. It could block you from leasing that apartment you’ve been pining for. And it can be a black mark on your record that even prevents you from landing your dream job.
  So it pays to know the essentials of your credit report and related score, the behaviors that can make your score rise or plummet, and the services that help you monitor your credit.
  Your credit report is a summary of your borrowing and repayment history—any new accounts, closed accounts, unpaid bills, late bills, and other activity. If you have a loan, mortgage or credit card, it will show up here. Your credit report provides the basis for your credit score.
  
  Your credit score (also called your Fair Isaac Corp. (FICO) score) is a three-digit number between 300 and 850 calculated from a formula that’s designed to gauge your creditworthiness. The three main credit-reporting agencies (Equifax Inc., Experian PLC, and TransUnion) buy the formula from Fair Isaac. The bureaus use your personal data and crunch the numbers differently, so your score will vary slightly at each agency. When a lender considers your application for credit, they turn to one (or all) of the credit agencies for your score, which indicates your reliability as a borrower.
  
  Here are a few ingredients of a credit score:
  • Payment History: Whether you pay your bills on time, including credit cards, student loans, utility bills, or any other lender or service provider that reports to the big three agencies. Getting this right is easy: don’t blow the due date.
  • Amounts owed: The breakdown of your credit balances, and how they compare to the limits of what you’re allowed to take out. If you’re maxed out, it can hurt.
  • Years of credit: The age on your accounts. The longer your credit history, the better lenders can gauge your ability to repay. Unfortunately, the formula knocks young borrowers who don’t have an established, detailed history.
  • New credit: How many accounts have you opened recently, and how many lenders have inquired about your credit? The more activity, the more it appears you’re about to go on a debt binge.
  • Types of credit: The mix of accounts you hold, such as auto loans, credit cards, student loans, or mortgages.
  
  In general, higher credit scores equate to lower interest rates, meaning less cash you’ll have to fork over during the life of a loan. Recently, credit experts think any score above 720 will get you the optimum interest rate. In 2007, the national average FICO score is 723, and 58% of Americans have a score higher than 700, according to Fair Isaac.
  Remember that your credit score is important, but it’s not the sole factor in whether you get approved for a loan, credit card, or other forms of credit. Most lenders also look at your annual income, employment history, and other factors.
  
  With many consumers worried about shaky credit—especially with the threat of identity theft and credit card fraud—many financial institutions, companies, and the credit bureaus themselves are pitching products that guard your credit. Their credit monitoring services watch for new accounts, a surge in balances, or other changes to your accounts. Some will produce detailed reports about your credit score and suggest ways to make it more attractive to lenders.
  Don’t confuse credit monitoring with identity theft protection. Credit card fraud is just a piece of the larger problem of identity theft. Paying someone to monitor your credit will not halt identity theft or unauthorized uses of your Social Security number or other personal data, although it can help you detect problems before they escalate.
  
  Do You Need Credit Monitoring?
  The thought of a thief running up huge credit-card debts in your name is frightening. But credit-monitoring firms are banking on that fear, especially if you’re already a victim of a data breach. Before you shell out $100 (or more) per year for a credit watchdog, make sure you’re doing it for the right reasons. Maybe you know that you won’t keep adequate watch yourself. Perhaps you’re applying for a mortgage and want to make sure your credit remains pristine. Or you could just be obsessed with the idea of credit fraud. If so, credit monitoring might be worth the peace of mind.
  
  If you’re on the fence about whether you need credit monitoring, consider these self-serve approaches for protecting your credit:
  
  Watch your bank and credit card statements for fishy transactions — Make a habit of scanning your financial accounts daily, or at least weekly. Some creditors will even allow you to set up your own free alerts to notify you when online transactions are made on your account or when a purchase exceeds a specified amount.
  
  Keep an eye on your credit report — By law, you’re entitled to a free report every year from each of the three bureaus, so you might as well order a different one every four months. Scan it for abnormal activity, such as accounts or credit cards you didn’t open. You can order the report through each agency, or at annualcreditreport.com. Don’t fall for the add-ons; you just want the score.
  
  If you’re curious about your credit score, you might be able to access it for free. Many banks don’t offer this perk—instead they’ll package your score with inflated charts and graphs and make you pay for it. But it doesn’t hurt to ask for it. Another tack is to ask an inquirer (car salesman, credit card company, or landlord) for a peek at your score. They’ll pull your score before doing business with you, and might share it if you ask nicely.
  
  You can also take other common-sense measures, such as protecting your credit accounts online and shredding sensitive documents, to help prevent fraud. It’s good to know that you have the power to control your credit without paying someone else to do it. Remember, annualcreditreport.com is where to order your free credit report.
  
  How to Picking the Right Service and Boosting Your Credit Score
  You should base your buying decision on how comprehensive you want the monitoring to be and what you’re willing to pay for it. If you’re conscientious about your credit, there are many common-sense steps you can take yourself to keep your credit healthy. In that case, credit monitoring may not be worth the extra money.
  
  The big three credit agencies all offer products that will try to detect fraud and generate your credit score. Each provides a variety of packages depending on how vigilant you want them to be. Many banks offer similar services — look around, you might be able to get a better offer through your financial institution. And the identity-theft players, like LifeLock and TrustedID, also pitch credit monitoring as part of their ID theft protection services.
  
  Make sure you consider the cost before signing on. Some services charge as much as $50 monthly to keep tabs on your credit, which can total $600 annually. Weigh that expense against your odds of suffering credit card fraud. By one estimate, identity theft touches 3 percent of Americans each year—with credit card fraud just a fraction of that number.
  Finally, watch out for the bureaus promoting fancy scores that purport to measure your credit risk by some reconfigured formula. You only want the FICO score, the same one lenders request. The other so-called FAKO scores—like Experian’s PLUS score, TransUnion’s TransRisk score or Experian’s Credit ScoreTracker—are money drains. They’ll just confuse you about where you really stand. If you just want your score, you can order it through Fair Isaac.
  
  If you’re merely looking to keep your credit in good health, it’s not too tricky. Limit your credit cards, set up automated payments to pay your bills on time, space out when you apply for loans and accounts, avoid maxing out your credit cards and carrying unpaid balances. And keep it up for years and years. In short, don’t go nuts with credit, and you should be fine.
  If you’re paying for credit monitoring or just doing it on your own, be sure to report any errors you spot in your report. Contact the agency that sent you the report—each of them has a process for reporting errors. Incorrect info can be damaging to your credit.
  

Dear Millennials: Your Love of Socialism Could be America’s Downfall…

Original Tag
http://louderwithcrowder.com/dear-millennials-your-love-of-socialism-will-be-americas-downfall/

Dear Millennials: Your Love of Socialism Could be America’s Downfall…
Courtney Kirchoff Thursday March 31 2016

millennialssocialism

Dear young adults in figurative diapers,

Being an adult can be a major drag. We have to get jobs. Pay bills. Pay taxes. Make our own appointments. Go to bed early so we can get up early and shuffle on to work the next morning so we can pay for all the stuff we need to continue working. Also the refrigerator doesn’t magically fill itself. Someone should tell Whirlpool about that. Have you noticed that in order for food to be prepared… you have to prepare it? Ridiculous. I’m calling my mom.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/WillFerrellMeatloaf.gif


Adulthood isn’t what we thought it would be. No, the economy these past several years hasn’t exactly been stellar, either. Okay? Okay.

My fellow millennials, for sure we have our challenges. Many of you were raised in broken homes. Many of you were exposed to divorce. It’s possible a lot of you didn’t live with your father or may not have known him at all. Combine home life with the rise of political correctness in school, taking its dangerous form of “self-esteem above all,” and no wonder you think life is unfair but you should have it all.

Look, I’m sorry life screwed you over in the early years. I’m sorry if you were shuffled to daycare day in and day out. I’m sorry if you don’t have memories of playing with your parents. But most of all, I’m sorry you were not instilled with the grand idea of personal responsibility. I’m sorry you were not empowered with the notion that YOU are the commander of your own life. If you take nothing else from this post, believe that no matter who you are, you can succeed. Without government.

Because guess what, my friends? Your abject loyalty to socialism is going to tank our country. Your insistence on getting what you want and making other people pay for it, all under the guise of “fairness,” will lead to ruin. For everyone. Including you.

You were likely taught in school of the virtues of socialism. How a government looking after its people via taking over businesses would promote equality. To each according to his need. Sharing, you were told, is caring. Awww! It’s a better world where everyone has the same things. It’s a better world when we’re all equal! No one is rich, no one is poor. Utopia.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/MindBlown.gif

Well, the education system kind of screwed fooled you. They told some white lies here and there. Why shouldn’t they? A public school is just a state school. A government school. Why wouldn’t those schools promote the same system which would ensure they continue on regardless of their quality? Regardless of the outcome? Follow the money. Public schools are funded by governments. It doesn’t seem to matter how poorly performing a school is, does it? Why is that? Because it doesn’t matter. FAIRNESS. EQUALITY. SCHOOL IS A RIGHT. HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES, YOU BIGOT!

The truth about socialism is much different. While you may think the tenets are lofty, fair, reasonable, and give you the feels, the reality is darker (read WW2 Survivor’s Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism…). See, socialism removes human ambition from the equation. Actually it does more than that. Socialism punishes human ambition. Those who strive to be their best, to do their best, only highlight the masses of humans who do not strive. Who fail. And that’s just. Not. Fair. It’s not fair for a few people to succeed while others don’t.

Voila, socialism. The idea that people who suck at life get to take from people who don’t suck at life, because it’s not fair that a few people who are either brilliant, hard-working, both brilliant and hardworking, should succeed more than people who are not brilliant or hard-working. BOO! Socialism promotes human mediocrity.


http://louderwithcrowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SpaceBallsWhatReaction.gif

Question for you: Who are these angels in government who are going to make things fair? After you’ve answered that question, answer me this: why do you put more trust in these elected strangers, who address you while reading from a teleprompter, with YOUR LIFE than you trust your own self? Read Dear Liberals: Your Cult-like Faith in Government is Disturbing… Why do you put so much faith in Bernie Sanders’s plan to save you than you trust yourself to save you? Reminder, it took Bernie Sanders 40 years to earn a paycheck.

Why do you want to change the economy because you just cannot hack it?

Socialism is for losers. Socialism is for bums (see WATCH: Debunking the Myth of ‘Democratic’ Socialism)
http://louderwithcrowder.com/watch-debunking-the-myth-of-democratic-socialism/
. Socialism is for people who think life is unfair and therefore everyone else, who does work, must take care of you. Or even if you are taking care of yourself, you still think everyone else should help those losers who can’t care for themselves. Seeing a theme here? Socialism is for people who see the worst in others. Socialism assumes humans are weak. Pathetic. Read Dear ‘Men’ Who Vote Bernie Sanders: You’re Not Men at All…

America was founded on the idea that human beings should be free to live their own lives. To be masters of their own destiny. That, by the way, is the definition of American Exceptionalism. People, not government, should be in charge of their own lives. They should be free. Free to succeed. Free to fail.

Which is why the blind embrace of socialism would systematically unwind what America is. Why? Because a lot of you just plain suck. Sorry for the tough love, but come on.

Interestingly, and I’m not using that word sarcastically, when you socialist millennials decide to pull on your big boy and big girl pants, go out into the world and fight for yourself, you leave socialism behind. After learning you can take care of yourself, it just requires a crap ton of work and less whining, your imaginary friend socialism loses its appeal.

From The Washington Post:

    The expanded social welfare state Sanders thinks the United States should adopt requires everyday people to pay considerably more in taxes. Yet millennials become averse to social welfare spending if they foot the bill. As they reach the threshold of earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, the majority of millennials come to oppose income redistribution, including raising taxes to increase financial assistance to the poor.

Lemme translate that for you: you’re totally cool with socialism…until you’re the one paying for it.

Attack on the GOP Ascendancy

From Commentary Magazine just after the election. I thought that this was an excellent review of where we are now and will be until Trump either succeeds or fails as a president.

John Podhoretz / Nov. 12, 2016

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

The Republican Party is in the ascendancy. Who could have predicted it? No one. The response of Democrats and liberals since the election has been screaming, crying, and telling tall tales about racist incidents on social media while providing no evidence that they’ve taken place—and, on the activist Left, rioting. That, alas, maybe anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear could have predicted.

First, the ascendancy. Among the many things everybody got wrong about this election, including me, was what we were seeing happening on the Right side of the political divide. We looked at the heated primary, the rise of Donald Trump, the right-of-center politicians who refused to support him and criticized him, and the conservative media that attacked him, and we concluded that the Republican Party was in crisis and in danger of breaking up. Up until the moment it became clear Trump was winning Florida, the major discussion point about the Right was the “civil war” that was about to break out and whether for the first time in 160 years the United States would see the rise of a serious third party.

Oops. Crow eaten, very much including by me.

After election night, the Republican Party is just fine. More than fine. The Republican Party is arguably in the strongest position it has held in the modern era—holding the Presidency, House, Senate, 33 governorships, 69 of 99 state legislatures, total control of offices in 25 states.

It turns out the crisis is not within Republicanism, but within conservatism. This isn’t a complete surprise, of course; fissures have been evident for years on various aspects of foreign and domestic policy. But if Trump does 20 percent of what he has said he’ll do when it comes to his policy agenda, he will create crises on the Right in relation to trade, the size of government, American commitments abroad, and the projection of American power. He will be a Republican president pushing an agenda that unsettles and upends many (largely) settled questions.

Will conservatives abandon their principles because the team with which they are aligned now has extraordinary political power? Will conservatives decide honestly they were wrong about certain fundamentals if Trump implements new approaches and those approaches work? If the changes Trump does make do not work, of course, his heresies will be blamed. What’s even more important, if they don’t work, the Republican ascendancy will end as quickly and decisively as it began.

The question for Democrats, liberals, and Leftists is this: After eight years in which perhaps their key talking point was that the problem with American governance was the GOP’s utter refusal to work with Democrats, can they now turn on a dime and simply do the same to the Trump Republicans? As the Magic 8-Ball says, signs point to yes. How else to interpret the behavior over the past five days, the riots and public nervous breakdowns by Leftists and liberals who cannot believe that what has happened has happened?

There is no real way to claim Trump’s electoral college majority of 304 is illegitimate–a charge that has been the favored tactic of the more paranoiac and conspiratorially-minded Right and Left over the past 16 years. George W. Bush was deemed illegitimate because he supposedly stole Florida; Barack Obama was deemed illegitimate because of the ridiculous charge he wasn’t actually born in America. Both of these absurdities seized the emotions and darkest ids of those whose true problem was that they couldn’t bear the policies being enacted and felt impotent in their efforts to block them.

So the claim instead is that Trump is, in his person, illegitimate. He’s racist and sexist and a demagogue and terrible. And this, I believe, has begun an interior process within the Democratic Left that opposing him by any means necessary is not only vital but a mark of moral superiority. And this grants people license to do illegitimate things in pursuit of delegitimizing the results of the election.

Many of the stories being retailed on Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere about watermelons being smashed on cars and swastikas being etched into cars and water fountains suddenly featuring signs that say “Whites Only” are so patently invented it’s staggering how easily people are falling for them. (Case in point: How many arrests have been made in these cases? How many actual news stories verifying these supposed incidents have you read?) The ones that are lies are being told by those who are telling them because, I expect, they believe they are revealing a deeper truth: They may be inventing these hate crimes but, since Trump is himself a walking hate crime, it is in service to a higher cause.

So, too, the rioting, which is nonsensical since the places in which the riots are taking place were Hillary Clinton strongholds. It happened to set a marker and make it clear that the Republican ascendancy will be opposed at every turn by every possible means.

I feel entirely free to make this argument precisely because I myself viewed Trump’s rise during the Republican primaries as a frightening event that was lowering American discourse. Perhaps had, say, the GOP candidates going up against him chose to aim their fire and hundreds of millions at Trump rather than at each other in the fall and winter, and had the horrified media of the past two months not been devoted to giving him $2 billion worth of air time and attention, Trump might have been stopped before he was given the inestimable gift of facing the worst presidential candidate since Walter Mondale. (At least Mondale was an upstanding and morally unimpeachable person, as opposed to the egregiously amoral and crooked Hillary Clinton.)

Instead, there was a certain glee as liberals watched what they believed was a Republican dumpster fire from which they would benefit immeasurably. When Les Moonves of CBS said he didn’t like Trump but thought he was good for the bottom line, he was saying two things at once: I’m making money off the other guy and it’s a double delight because the team I oppose is going to be punished! No, they didn’t like Trump, but they believed he had risen up from the bubbling depths and would destroy conservatism and the GOP for them.

My views on Trump’s fitness haven’t changed. But I do not question his legitimacy. Instead, I question the legitimacy of the lies being told to discredit him and the riots being staged to set a marker for worse civil unrest to come. Every serious person should.

Three common arguments against Trump still being made

Three common arguments against Trump still being made

http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/im-a-coastal-elite-from-the-midwest-the-real-bubble-is-rural-america#sthash.fqVO5KUr.gbpl

 

This article prompted me to write this argument against three common charges against Donald Trump. These are dated arguments, but still make the rounds. They are being clung to by Democrats still reeling from the election of Donald J. Trump.

It is not the fault of the COastal Elite, rather the people from the Midwest

"To pin this election on the coastal elite is a cop-out. " Not the elite per se, The Clinton campaign was ignoring the issues and people of the Midwest. Bill Clinton apparently pointed this out but was over ridden. Obama recently said that Hillary did not get to this area enough.

The article repeats the standard false and outdated talking points regarding Donald J. Trump. Here I try to knock them down.

He makes three claims saying that these rubes from the Midwest voted for a man who...

 

CLAIMS

(1) violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to black people. If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-class and rural Americans for voting for a man who called

(2) Mexicans rapists, drug dealers and criminals. If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-class and rural Americans for voting for a man who called for a

(3) complete ban on Muslim immigration."

RESPONSES

(1) The government sued Trump. Trump sued the government. "Trump vehemently denied the claims, which he called "absolutely ridiculous," according to a 1973 New York Times article. Trump and his company filed a counter-suit the following December, claiming the government made baseless charges and asking for $100 million in damages. The court dismissed the counter-suit."

Trump agreed to stipulations but did not admit guilt. Hardly "violated."

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/27/hillary-clinton/true-hillary-clinton-says-federal-government-sued-/

1973 was different time and place. This was two years before the TV show The Jeffersons came on the air to explore this issue. The Jeffersons went off the air in 1985 when the show was no longer provocative.(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072519/) This is very old news.

(2) Liberals always eliminate this crucial sentence/ "And some, I assume, are good people."

Source 6/16/2015: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html

Current position: Strengthen border security and reform immigration. The people illegally here in our country who are guilty of a crime will be deported or incarcerated. No different than Obama's position.

(3) Liberals ALWAYS stop the quoted sentence BEFORE this "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

Source 12/7/2015: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Current position is "Extreme vetting." and probably country based.

We are in a race with the radical Islamic terrorists and cannot lose. It will only take one to destroy a city.

So in conclusion, it does not help to make the same old tired arguments. Let's see how he does and go about our business until there is something NEW to talk about.

"Donald Trump is going to be our president, We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” Hillary Rodham Clinton 11/09/2016