Donald Trump — December 28, 2016 at 6:36 pm

It’s almost impossible to describe how badly the GOP is about to mess up the economy


If you think our biggest problem is that the super rich aren’t super rich enough, the GOP is fighting for you

Take a look at this:

If you look at this, you’d think that one of the biggest problems in our economy — if not the biggest — is that all the growth is going to the richest, who have never been richer.

To fix this, you’d do some of the things that have been done in the Obama Administration like increasing taxes on the rich, especially the super rich, to do things like fund health insurance for the working poor.

Unless, you’re Paul Ryan, you wouldn’t look at this and think, “Know what? We need fewer tax brackets — and the rich need to pay less.”

Rather you’d say, it’s kind of insane that a guy who earns $500,000 a year pays the same tax rate as someone who earns $50 million a year. And it’s pretty batty that we cap payroll taxes at just over over $100,000 a year when there is so much income who flowing to the very rich, who are the people who are living the longest.

Instead Trump and the GOP are about to unleash a series of policies that will almost exclusively benefit the rich and their corporations, who are already experiencing record profits.

These plans include:

And while the economy is being devoured by those who need it the least, Trump will deliver his symbolic and highly effective PR stunts that save a few jobs while everything else he can to hollow out the middle class.

We already know what this looks like in practice.

See America after 7 years of Bush/Cheney.

See Kansas after six years of Sam Brownback:

Trump is already taking credit for the Obama economy. (Is there anything more Trump than a white guy who did nothing trying to take credit for 8 years of work from a black guy he called lazy?) And he likely has a long glide path where his party’s efforts to deregulate, uninsure and generally rip off every dime of savings we have can wreck its full havoc.

The question is: When it all falls apart, will Trump’s expertise at distraction and distortion powerful enough to overwhelm the failures he’s inviting?

  • Michiganmitch

    The MSM (yeah right) , the Democratic Party and the liberal media have got to get out and claim the narrative from the get go. First we must prevent the right from rewriting history and derail the claims already made about the Trump stock rally and phony job creation like the Carrier debacle.

    • JustTheFactsMa’am

      That’s the single biggest drum I beat. The republicans have absolutely mastered deflection. They and their massive media outlet, Fox, can and do spin EVERY. SINGLE. ISSUE. to make it look like the democrats were at fault. For a party that preaches personal responsibility, they sure can push blame onto someone else.

      • Michiganmitch

        Not fussy about facts either. It is really tough to win when you debate a liar with facts.

  • Hugh Manatee

    What do you mean “the GOP is fighting you”? So are Democrats. Since Bill Clinton’s “Third Way” They’ve supported Reagan-era, trickle-down, Neoliberal economics. That’s why Wall Street go bailed out, and not Main Street. That’s why no bankers went to jail. That’s why banks have been deregulated under Democrat watch.

    Both parties are screwing the American people.

    Sure, Democrats are leagues better on social issues – but that doesn’t make them the better party – it makes one a decent person.

    • DaveHarrison69


      Our best GDP growth and lowest unemployment was when our min wage was in todays dollars about 15/hr as it is other developed countries or higher and that includes a min of a 4 week paid vacation, healthcare , paid for college…. Does it hurt their economy’s, now.. it is us who have under supply side dropped to 15th in wages and GDP per capita and 27th in middleclass wealth. Repubeconomics has never worked… No data supports it! And by the way, who has the best economies now and fastest job growth.. the places that braised the Min wage! In 1956 Republican Platform, they bragged about increasing number of people who got a min wage increase! Who lead in part time min wage and below jobs.. Texas and other red states!

      All you have to do as look at the RED states and how race to the bottom works… all Greece’s w/o 80 years of Blue state welfare payments to them!

      80 years of Economic results

      •Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
      •Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
      •Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
      •Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
      •Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
      •The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations and 3rd was at end of Reagan with an S&L bailout, tripling of the debt, doubling government jobs, 96% of all debt now tied to Republicans and/or their policies.

      State level…

      The greatest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world has been from Blue states and those Cities run by DEMs which account for over 80% of the GDP, to red states who on average get back 50% in FED money than they pay in…. all taker states, with lowest wages and most part time workers, highest percent on food stamps and highest percentage of government workers( 1-16 all red , California ranked 32nd and a very Blue state).

      Thanks for playing. Another game?

      • Hugh Manatee

        You’ve just proven my point. Neoliberal economics is a failed economic system.

        When Bill Clinton ran to become President, he adopted Reagan-era policies, to move to the right, to reach conservative voters. So, he adopted Neoliberal economics and Neoconservative foreign policy – two policies that Democrats have championed since then.

        That’s why since 1980 the cost of food has increased over 200%, health care over 600% and college tuition over 1100% – while income for the bottom 90% of Americans (those making ~ <$125k) has only increased approximately 15% (and the further down in the percentiles you go, the less and less their increase, until it stagnates, and then actually decreases.)

        Bill Clinton was a centrist. President Obama was a centrists. Hillary was a centrist.

        Being socially liberal doesn't make you a "progressive" or "liberal". It makes you a decent person who believes that humans deserve to be treated like humans.

        Stop using social issues as a litmus test, and judge politicians on their economic and foreign policies.

        Checkmate motherfucker. (See, I can be a cocky asshole too! It's not difficult!)

  • I am bothered by the video graphic. I’ve made a lot of graphics on income distribution and none of them were as flat as this graphic. It almost looks like, with the exception of the very rich and the very poor, income distribution is spreading out as more people enter the “middle class”. But that isn’t the case; the working population is moving left with more and more people in the low income brackets while a smaller number of people are earning much larger incomes. Here is a good graphic that I found:×7201.gif. Do you see how many families were earning between $15k and $20k? This is the modal point on the graph. A family was slightly more likely to earn between $5k and $10k than to earn between $45k and $50k. We know who the desperately poor were, they earned under $10k. We know who the working middle class were, they earned more than $45k and upwards to $100k. But we have all but forgotten the vast majority of the people on the curve, the low-income, working class stiffs earning between $10k and $45k (most often under $30k). This was 2010 and the curve has shifted a bit but not much.

  • James Roger Bell

    I would love to see this graphed with the decline in union membership.