If there is a positive about the EITC it's that it's a near certianty to go right back into the economy. It's an annual economic stimulus of about $70B a year.
He has a point. It's possible to make the case that Trump has failed in his first 100 days. Many promises that he made haven't been kept (at least not on time), and he is right that Trump has flip-flopped on some things. However, Nichols is using a common rhetorical trick that the elite Left often deploys. He is pointing things out that are indisputable facts (such as some of Trump's false statements, the failure to repeal Obamacare, etc.) and using them to deem his conclusion (which is supported by those facts) that Trump is a failure an indisputable fact, when it's actually still a matter of subjective opinion. That allows him to make the rhetorical leap that if you don't think Trump is a failure, you refuse to accept facts and are therefore not just wrong but "politically illiterate" or irrational and worthy of condescension and ridicule. What he's missing is that while the facts he points to are real facts, the importance or unimportance of facts in rendering judgment on something or someone is a matter of opinion. For example, Nichols (like many elite liberals) put great importance on Spicer's Hitler comment, Trump's comment about cheering Muslims, Trump blabbing about ratings, etc. Those may have been stupid or even false statements, but one isn't irrational if he or she accepts that they're false but assigns very little weight to them in judging Trump's presidency. I don't think you're irrational if you think Spicer's comment that Hitler didn't use chemical weapons on his own people isn't the end of the world, even if you know it was false. He is right that many Trump supporters like him because of who his enemies are. However, that's not just a kneejerk assessment by them. What Nichols doesn't recognize or chooses to ignore is that Trump's media enemies are distrusted by Trump supporters for good reason. They've blown their credibility with their duplicity and double standards. For example, they think the "cheering Muslims" comment was a very consequential false statement (and for the record, that statement is treated like it's demonstrably false, when it's actually just unsupported) worthy of supporting a broad judgment of contempt but thought "if you like your health plan you can keep it" was inconsequential or justifiable. Well, if those are your values, then you shouldn't be surprised if people aren't in your bubble don't take you very seriously.
By that logic we should just tax everyone 50 percent and then give 90 percent of the country a credit. That should stimulate the economy even more, right?
The point is, when you give money to the poor it immediately goes back into the economy. They don't have the benefit of saving or investing it.
Another good point is if you give money to the poor they tend not to want to go out and earn their own money from that point on.
There continue to be signs that the rest of the world is catching up to the idea that Trump is a "deal-maker"
CNN is amused but I think Trump should do this with every interview the next 4 years. Or until they get it
Let's give money to everyone and really get this ***** kick started! How could that not work? That idea is pure, Democrat endorsed, economic nirvana. Money for nothin and ....
Russia state TV thinks Trump is a deal maker? Maybe there is still hope that their investment may pay off.
Yet still he lost the popular vote. He finished #2 in the final vote tally which to most politicians might mean he would try to be more bipartisan to push their agenda.
How will we ever know? That's like bragging about getting the most first downs even though the scoreboard said something else? Its a totally different campaign if they were going after popular votes. Arguing popular vote = Loser!
We do know. The States have certified the vote. That map got Trump into the White House. Outside of that, it's meaningless. It's time to govern now and this Administration continually stumbles in that regard. I hope they can right the ship.
Campaigning to win the popular vote is as useless as an OC spending all his practice time perfecting the spread offense. Sure they may move the ball up and down the field and look impressive piling up yards. But good luck scoring in the red zone enough to win after ignoring goal line offense. Nobody cares when the loser was more effective at moving the ball. To win a football game the pre-established marker is to score more points than the opponent. If you don't address enough critical areas to maximize scoring the points needed to win, you're nothing more than a productive loser. Same with presidential elections. Since Libs apparently value a simple majority over appropriate regional representation in federal governing, what about Congress? They're in charge of making federal laws. Why not pool all 2018 Congressional candidates together in two respective pools? Let the country vote on their top 33 Senate choices and top 435 house choices. Let's pack Congress with members representing the demands of those in the most heavily populated areas. Screw the rest of the country. That's fair and appropriate. smh Let the popular vote decide that as well since the value of regional representation deciding those in federal government is so useless and outdated. People need to wake up to the dangerous and disturbing anti-American cult of the modern radical Libs. They've waged an all out assault on the election process, free speech, immigration laws, and nearly anything to do with the constitution. Countless bedrocks that made America great their nasty cult now viciously opposes. The next war fought to protect the homeland will likely be between our own citizens.
They'll need to carry her out before she'll retire with Trump in office. She's a common target of JoeFan but she's a pretty feisty lady. At her age she could be gone at any moment though.
If this comes to pass, it will be interesting to see what lengths the left will go to in order to prop up and keep alive RGB, as well as keep her from retiring.
I think they will bring out all they have on this vote. "Borking" or whatever new tactic it is. Who the nominee actually is will be of little difference to them (assuming Trump does not flake on us). The "Scalia seat" was one thing, but this one is a key swing vote.
Honestly, I'm not so sure. She was pissed off when people tried to get her to retire under Obama, and the message I get is that she's going to retire when she feels like it and doesn't particularly care about the politics of it. Of course, I'm speculating about the intentions of an 84 year old widow who shows up at State if the Union addresses a drunk (which I actually think is kinda cool), so who knows what the truth is?
That's all they have. They sold the small piece of leverage they had for bragging rights to pitch to the base.
The man who's supporters elected him due to his great negotiating prowess has discovered that governing requires more than simply edicts.
Here, Here!! For this very reason, the GOP needs to quit spending political capital and resources on crap like opening the parks up for drilling and opening up the arctic for drilling and dismantling the EPA. All of those things are small potatoes and benefit a precious few. I agree with the sentiment of scaling back some overreach of government and downsizing some aspects of government but those are not the important fights right now. To borrow a word from on the field....focusness matters
I would have to disagree on the idea that those are "small potatoes and benefit a precious few". I am also skeptical of the whole "political capital" argument. What exactly is political capital? Politicians have the unlimited ability to derive ways to try and exert power over various sectors of society. They only need ink and paper, and they are only limited by time.
