People seem to be missing the point. The only point that really matters, it seems to me, is that the Republican candidate for president went on TV in front of millions of people and told a multi-trillion-dollar lie.
In 2000 that lie was that “by far the vast majority” of his proposed tax cuts would go to people at “the bottom of the economic ladder” (and wouldn’t send the nation back into deficit). This was completely untrue. Mathematically impossible. But it sounded good and he went on to serve two disastrous terms.
Last night the lie was that the best off would not see their taxes reduced (even though, for example, the estate tax on billionheirs would drop from 45% to 0%) and that the Republican candidate’s 20% across the board tax cut would not cost $5 trillion, would not raise the deficit or require sacrifice from anyone but the rich.
As in 2000, the math just doesn’t add up.
And his proposed $2 trillion increase in military spending? Though unrequested by the military, we are to believe this is not an example of wasteful government spending . . . not going to result in a deeper deficit or an increased tax burden on anyone.
All this is possible, apparently, because cutting taxes creates jobs. Just look how well it’s worked over the last ten years.
And all this is necessary, apparently, because Clinton-era tax rates kill jobs — except, well, the 23 million that were created.
There is much more to say — one of my friends texted me to say he thought the President’s shoulders looked droopy — but isn’t the main thing to say that the Republican candidate for president went on TV in front of millions of people and — repeatedly, as in 2000 — told a multi-trillion-dollar lie?
Quote of the Day
If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see how bad it is with representation.~The Old Farmer's Almanac
Request email delivery