Donald Trump

To Protect Mueller From Trump, Republican Silence May Be Shrewd

Congressional Republicans may be keeping quiet not because they want to see Mueller fired but because they don't.

|

For congressional Republicans, having Donald Trump in the White House is like carrying around a vial of nitroglycerin. It can be useful in getting your way with others, but it puts you at perpetual risk of making a wrong move and being blown to pieces.

Most of these legislators came into this relationship against their own preferences, having favored someone else in the GOP primaries. Now that they are in it, they are constantly trying to figure out how to work with the president to advance their agenda while keeping him from setting off explosions.

As Trump escalates his attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller, they are being accused of timidity for declining to move legislation to prevent Trump from firing him. "Paul Ryan needs to be stronger, and so does Mitch McConnell," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D-N.Y.), charged that by not acting, "they're almost encouraging" Trump to dismiss Mueller.

Passing this type of bill, argued an editorial in The Washington Post, "would send a clear, public message that congressional leaders have so far declined to convey: Firing Mr. Mueller would elicit a substantial real-world reaction that would severely harm the White House."

The critics sound like childless adults who think parents should be able make their kids behave perfectly. Keeping Trump under control is harder than it looks. Some of the most important Republicans on Capitol Hill may be holding off not because they want to see Mueller fired but because they don't.

When you throw a pass, the legendary University of Texas football coach Darrell Royal noted, three things can happen—and two of them are bad. A push for this legislation would have even worse odds. Five things could happen, and only one is good.

First, a measure to protect Mueller could fail to get the votes to pass. Or it could pass without the two-thirds needed in both houses to override a veto. Either fate would give Trump the idea that he could purge the special counsel and get away with it.

The prospect of legislation could also prompt him to pre-empt it by firing Mueller immediately. The least likely outcome would be that the measure actually becomes law. If it did, Trump might dismiss him anyway and bet the courts would strike it down.

Some prominent GOP lawmakers have publicly warned Trump to leave Mueller alone. But even Republicans who have been willing to challenge the president are not lining up behind such legislation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who says that firing Mueller "would be the end of President Trump's presidency," is sponsoring a bill to protect the special counsel—but thinks it can wait. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina doesn't mind that his bill is collecting cobwebs, because there is no "imminent need." Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a vocal Trump opponent, has yet to buy in.

What would explain this paradox? The general line among Republican members is that the president should let the special counsel complete his task. Some may also be communicating to Trump privately that while they can tolerate his furious denunciations of Mueller, they would not tolerate his firing.

Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff for Sen. Mitch McConnell, told The New York Times that if the Republican leader feels the need to let Trump know he shouldn't get rid of Mueller, "he probably communicates it directly and doesn't feel the need to pontificate in public."

The Republicans may also be playing a long game. By not passing a bill to constrain Trump, they convey their loyalty to GOP voters—82 percent of whom still view the president favorably. If these members are going to abandon him, they may calculate, better to wait until he makes a huge misstep. With any luck, he'll restrain himself and they won't have to.

Perhaps the inaction of congressional Republicans reflects animus toward the special counsel, blind allegiance, to Trump, or cowardice. But it's equally plausible that they are making a considered effort to avoid encouraging or provoking the president to fire Mueller.

In a hyper-partisan climate, it's easy to interpret every difference of opinion as proof of sordid motives. But if Republicans actually wanted Trump to get rid of Mueller, they would be saying so. Instead, they have shown a preference for letting him do his job. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that they have the right goal and know how to achieve it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

103 responses to “To Protect Mueller From Trump, Republican Silence May Be Shrewd

  1. Far more likely, Trump would see any attempt as a threat to his power and fire Mueller immediately. Because power-crazed.

    But he’s going down either way..

    1. Which actions of Trump’s are power crazed? Submitting warrants to spy on reporters? Wait that was Obama. Refusing to appoint any special prosecutors for investigations into their scandals? Wait Obama. Issuing new laws through memorandum bypassing even the EO route? Wait Obama. New laws by dear colleague letters? Wait Obama. Losing at the supreme Court at a record level? Wait Obama.

      What has Trump done again?

      1. Trump beat Hillary and that is enough.

        1. Yes, it is different when your side does it. We know that Hihn. You don’t have to remind us.

          1. I’m neither ignorant of Trump’s abuses, nor a kiss-ass.

            1. These abuses that you don’t list. Look you fucking delusional retard the voices in your head are not reality.

              1. Those voices are of Adam Stiff, while cumming in his mouth.

      2. Look at you making antifa babies! The more times you request and provide factual substantiation and back your side of the argument with it the more people have either to accept your conclusion or increase their cognitive dissonance. If it happens enough times, the dissonance becomes a psychotic break rendering them antifa.

    2. Because power-crazed.

      Reducing reg’s and deferring to the legislature is not “power-creazed”. And firing a government official that he has the expressed authority to fire is not “power-crazed”.

        1. Which part of my post was a straw-man?

          1. The part where you had the temerity to disagree with him and actually back up your argument. Hihn probably thinks only straw men do that.

            1. ANOTHER ignorant Fox viewer doesn’t know that Rebel Scum listed only two examples — NONE of which does anyone call power abuse — while ignoring almost a dozen which are.

              Trumptards are as dumb as Donald publicly said they are,
              And Left – Right = Zero (still)

  2. A lot of analogies there Chapman- explosives and football.

    Here’s an analogy for you- If you wait for dementia ridden parent to ask for help in being put in a home that day will never come. Mueller will never voluntarily end his “investigation” by saying that he is done his job within the scope that started it. Mueller will continue to waste taxpayer money if you let him.

    Congress needs to set a date, like April 1, 2018 and say if you don’t have any new crimes relating to Russia stealing the election, then its over.

    1. It would be good if Mueller actually started his investigation about the purpose of his appointment. Mueller seems to investigate everything but Russian collusion and is avoiding the only factual collusion we know of regarding Steele.

      1. His brief, strangely enough, directs him to only look at collusion on the part of Trump’s campaign. Collusion by anybody else is outside his jurisdiction. This is a bit of a problem when all the collusion was by the Democrats.

        1. This is a bit of a problem when all the collusion was by the Democrats.

          If you are aware that Mr. Mueller has determined that “all the collusion was by the Democrats,” I encourage you to perform a public service by alerting any of the countless reporters who would welcome the information.

          If you have evidence or a report to offer, you should publish it.

          After you publish your findings on the Obama birth certificate, of course.

          1. All the collusion that’s been identified in public reports has been by the Democrats: Paying the Russians to provide smears of Trump through cutouts, to make it look like real intelligence. The Podesta Group being unregistered lobbyists for Russian interests.

            1. Brett Baltimore,
              That just adds to your proven bullshit on this page. But Donald will give you a cookie!

        2. His brief, strangely enough, directs him to only look at collusion on the part of Trump’s campaign

          Click Brett’s link. (smirk)

          The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017,

          (i) including: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

          (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

          (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. ? 600.4(a).

          If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

          Umm, collusion is not a legal term, not does it appear ANYWHERE in the assignment.
          So when Trump programs his puppets with “NO COLLUSION,” it’s about as useless as saying, “NO RAPE OF 12-YEAR-OLD GIRLS “…. which is ALSO totally irrelevant to the investigation!
          But when he yanks their stings … they dance,

          Bullshit = bullshit. Left – Right = Zero

          1. Collusion is not a legal term. It is not a crime. So that means Meuller is investigating nothing you fucking half wit. There is no crime to investigate. God damn you are fucking stupid.

            1. Crime is never mentioned in the three points he is charged to investigate. Nor is collusion,

              So that means Meuller is investigating nothing you fucking half wit.

              (snort)

              “… conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017,
              (i) including: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
              (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
              (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. ? 600.4(a).”

              1. And those things are not crimes. DOJ can’t investigate things unless they are crimes. You just conceded the point and are too fucking stupid to realize it.

                1. DOJ can’t investigate things unless they are crimes.

                  (laughing) HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THEY ARE CRIMES?

                  1. (laughing) HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THEY ARE CRIMES?

                    It is called probable cause you fucking moron. You launch an investigation when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. You don’t just investigate because you want to. That is not how it works.

                    1. Bullshit #4 and #5

                      DOJ can’t investigate things unless they are crimes.

                      (laughing) HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THEY ARE CRIMES?

                      You launch an investigation when there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

                      Like ,,, Russian interference in our election? (sneer)
                      And you reversed yourself AGAIN!

                      Left – Right = Zero

    2. if you don’t have any new crimes relating to Russia stealing the election,(smirk)

  3. There’s probably a thousand criminal cases around the country where someone is wrongfully accused or convicted. You see them all the time where DNA clears a guy who’s been in prison 30 years. Some places these cases are stonewalled for years and years. These are actual real examples of injustice. I’ve never heard nor do I expect Trump to mention any of these cases when he rails against the FBI, Judges or ‘witch hunts’. No, this scum motherfucket Trump is selfish to the core and would cry and scream about injustice while inflicting horror upon real victims of injustice.

    1. It would be nice if a president spoke against that type of injustice.

      You do know that most people go through a state criminal justice system not a federal one? In other words, the president has nothing to do with state wrongful prosecutions, unconstitutional delays of fair trials in state courts, etc.

      1. Trump is a lot of things but a pussy is not one. Trump has the ears and support of all the usual impediments to meaningful criminal justice reform and if anyone could lead in this area it would be Trump but he’s shown that he doesn’t care. He only cares about his own narrow interests. Now the last president had a better moral compass but no balls. Trump has balls but no compass.

        1. Best comparison I’ve seen.
          But they each have their own cult of mindless followers.

          Left – Right = Zero.

          1. Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
            OM
            Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
            OM
            Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
            OM
            Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
            OM

            1. But they each have their own cult of mindless followers.

              Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo OM
              Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo OM
              Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo OM
              Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo OM

              Thanks for proving my point, Berniebot!

              1. Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
                OM
                Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
                OM
                Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
                OM
                Leeeft minus riiight equals zeeeroooooo
                OM

              2. Thanks for proving my point, Berniebot!

                It’s FUNNY that you consider a recitation of YOUR mantra to be MINDLESS.

                (bully)

                1. AGAIN in boldface …

                  But they each have their own cult of mindless followers.

                  It’s FUNNY that you consider a recitation of YOUR mantra to be MINDLESS.

                  IT’S THE FOLLOWERS WHO ARE MINDLESS

      2. What kind of cousinfucking moron could possibly think Trump is a good president?

        1. Why are you obsessed with cousin-fucking? I get the idea that you are projecting on to other people. So which cousin of yours are you hot for?

          And the bar for being a “good” president is pretty low. I’d say Trump is a decent president, certainly the best in my lifetime. But, again, that bar is pretty low.

          1. Tony is always about projection. He is a seriously broken and deviant person who deals with it by projecting that onto everyone else.

          2. Would you prefer slack-jawed hillbilly?

            And you’re obviously insane so what do you matter.

            1. slack-jawed hillbilly

              I always forget that proggies care so much about people that they lob such affectionate insults at those with whom they disagree.

              obviously insane

              Can you provide evidence to support this accusation?

        2. What kind of buttfucking moron could possibly think Obama was a good president?

        3. YOU Tony. You think Trump is a good president.

          1. Trump and Obama are BOTH losers.

            Left – Right STILL = Zero

            Which is why God invented libertarians to call out and ridicule both goobers for a half-century (and counting)

    2. I doubt those guys are defending Trump. So what?

  4. “Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who says that firing Mueller “would be the end of President Trump’s presidency,””

    Probably be more accurate to say that he hopes it would be.

    1. Guaranteed. Except to Trumptards.

      1. 47% of the country voted for him. And the vast majority of them would not give a shit if he fired Mueller. And they sure as hell would vote against any Republican who voted to remove him from office. No, Trump could fire Mueller tomorrow and it would make no difference.

        Hihn, you are without a doubt the dumbest person who posts on here. Tony if vicious and neurotic, Shreek is delusional, but you are stupid in a very special way they are not.

        1. Trumptard proves my point.

          Roughly 25% of them voted against Hillary, not for Trump.
          Another 25% because he ran as a Republican.
          And he’d have lost the Electoral College if a mere 29,000 votes were not switched by the combination of Comey, the Russians and Facebook.

          The most distrusted President EVER … but that’s today. (Not reported by Fox, Breitbart, Infowars)

          Left – Right = Zero

          1. yeah, so 50% of the 47 or whatever percent he got means 24% of the vote would turn on the Republican party if they impeached him. The Republicans could so afford to lose 25% of the voting public.

            Jesus H. Christ, you are retarded. You are just dumb as a fucking post. You can’t even do basic math.

            1. Left – Right = Arthur L. Kirkland + Michael Hihn

              1. The scary thing is that Hihn seems more likely to be real than Kirkland. That people like Hihn actually exist is something that should keep you awake at night.

                1. Truthfully, its an insult to shriek to classify him with Hihn.

                  1. Totally. Shreek is an idiot but at least can be funny and is pretty obviously a sock puppet for someone. Hihn is utterly humorless and makes up for it by being angry and dangerously stupid.

            2. The Republicans could so afford to lose 25% of the voting public.

              That would leave 22%!

              Left – Right = Zero

              1. And 22% would win exactly zero elections. Wow. You are so fucking stupid.

                1. This was your point.

                  And the vast majority of them would not give a shit if he fired Mueller. And they sure as hell would vote against any Republican who voted to remove him from office. No, Trump could fire Mueller tomorrow and it would make no difference.

                  So … only 22% would give a shit if Trump fired Mueller.

                  1. Which would doom the Republican Party. And that is why it is not going to happen. Maths are a vicious mistress, especially if you are retarded.

          2. Forgot your meds again?

  5. Something tells me that here you will definitely find some info on how to write the great essay. Check it out as soon as you can because its worth it

  6. It’s odd to see a thread go to shit in the first comment.

      1. bully

        1. Zero

          (snort)

    1. Hopefully it will remain odd to see Hihn post first.

      1. Hihn might be the dumbest human being on the internet. It is just terrifying how stupid he is.

      2. Actual Definiitons

        Right-wing snowflakes. Authoritarian group-think, like left-wing snowflakes,

        Aggression The action or an act of attacking without provocation

        Cyberbullying The act of bullying someone through electronic means (as by posting mean or threatening messages about the person online)

        Stalker A person who harasses or persecutes someone with unwanted and obsessive attention

        Retarded A word used to describe someone who is profoundly stupid. A type of stupidity that is an insult to intelligence itself.

        Psychopath A person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

        1. Yes Hihn, you seem to be all of those things. And you make up for it by having a victim complex and being dumb as a post. Either you are a sociopath or are incredible at playing one on the internet.

          Projection is a real thing. Freud got a few things right.

        2. I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds your selection of speed links humorous.

          1. The fact that Hihn’s online personality fits all of those is pretty funny as long as you assume he isn’t a real person.

            1. Mr. Hihn, you couldn’t hold Tony’s Depends.

              1. Now, let’s not make assertions we can’t take back.

        3. BTW, your Right-wing snowflakes link is broken. Also, why did you choose Merriam-Webster for your Cyberbullying link and Urban Dictionary for your Retarded link?

          1. Hihn is an artist. You can’t do this kind of stupidity by rote. It is an instinctual thing. Hihn can no more explain why he does the things he does than Picasso could tell you why he painted the way he did. Hihn works in stupidity they way other great artists work in clay or canvas. Don’t question or analyze, just marvel at how someone is able to achieve this level of stupidity.

            1. Yes, you’ve got it – he’s and artist. He probably fancies himself as a Miles Davis or an Eubie Blake.

              1. He admits that collusion isn’t a crime but then defends Meuller by saying “he was empowered to investigate it”. He keeps scoring in his own goal and is too stupid to realize it.

  7. The critics sound like childless adults who think parents should be able make their kids behave perfectly.

    You shouldn’t bring a child in public until it can behave with good manners. Look pal, I didn’t make the rules.

    1. Took that quote personally I see.

    2. Obvious joke is obvious.

  8. dismiss Mueller.

    He has gone so far off the reservation with regard to what he is actually supposed to be investigating that he should be dismissed.

    1. More bullshit from Rebel Scum? See for yourself. Think for yourself.

      The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confined by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017,

      (i) including: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

      (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

      (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. ? 600.4(a).

      If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

      Robotic minds are programmed by Pravda Fox “News”.
      The word “collusion” never appears. SAD!

      1. (i) including: any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

        that is not a crime. You admitted as much above. Why is DOJ investigating things that are not crimes?

        (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

        (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. ? 600.4(a).

        The council was appointed to investigate something that isn’t a crime but is empowered to investigate anything else he might find. That is called a witch hunt you fucking moron. The entire chapter of this investigation is illegal. Indeed, Manfort is claiming that right now and will at some point get a chance to be heard before an appellate court and likely have his indictment dismissed.

        Look Hihn, being angry and retarded is no substitute for actual knowledge, especially when it comes to the law. Just give it up.

        1. that is not a crime. You admitted as much above.

          I didn’t “admit.” I jammed it up his ass. YOUR TURN!

          Why is DOJ investigating things that are not crimes?

          Ummmm, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CRIMES!!! The part you FAILED to include

          “..If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters..”

          (It’s not my INTENT to ridicule the handicapped)

          1. If it is not your intent to ridicule the handicapped, why do you spend so much time ridiculing yourself?

          2. Ummmm, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY CRIMES!!! The part you FAILED to include

            LOL. You can’t make this shit up. You really can’t. You conduct an investigation to look for a specific crime not to just see if you can find anything. You just admitted this thing is a fishing expedition.

            Stop scoring in your own goal. Even I am getting embarrassed for you.

            1. Bwaaaaa haaaaa haaaaa

              You conduct an investigation to look for a specific crime not to just see if you can find anything

              To LOOK for something, NOT to find anything ! THIS is Trump’s base!

  9. The irony of a Libertarian publication having no concern about restraining a prosecutor is quite large. We must restrain Trump but Mueller is of course above reproach and should be subject to no oversight or restraint. Nothing says liberty like completely unaccountable prosecutors.

    1. By not passing a bill to constrain Trump, they convey their loyalty to GOP voters ? 82 percent of whom still view the president favorably.

      Unbelieveable, right?

      Or maybe, given that such legislation would almost certainly be struck down in any court, they figure that even any signaling that some of the swampier members might be willing to engage in would be a waste of time.

      1. Oops that was not a reply to you John

    2. This is Libertarian? A Chapman article with Hihn shitting all over the comments?

      You’ve stuck around and fought the good fight, but most of us left because of just this kind of shit. I visit occasionally, it’s like rubber-necking a horrible car-crash.

      1. It really is. Chapman has always been stupid.

  10. Nothing but crickets from our Trotskyite triumvirate, Michael Hihn, Arthur L. Kirkland, and Tony on Bob Mueller’s corrupt and sordid past.

    If they were truly concerned about the rule of law, why wouldn’t they be demanding Mueller’s head? Its as if they never heard of James Whitey Bulger and the 1965 gangland murder of Teddy Deegan for which four innocent men were sent to jail with two of them dying there before the other two were released in 2001. The FBI, of course, had framed the four men and it was Bobby Mueller who, for years, in his capacity as assistant United States attorney, and as US Attorney, had written to the parole board objecting to the release of the four men knowing that they had been framed by the DOJ and the FBI.

    1. Trotskyite Michael Hihn,

      (sneer)

      1. So, the modifier applies to the other two?

        1. So, the modifier applies to the other two?

          Alt-right goober makes BIGGER ass of himself!

          Web archive of my published political writing. Pick any link especially Taxes, Healthcare or Governing. (smirk)

          Media interview, as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA Insurance Commissioner.

          Theme: Freedom works!
          Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated – but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

          Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage. (sneer)

          cont’d

    2. Participating in a desperate months-late attempt at a smear job should make you feel dirty.

      1. They’re PROUD to be babbling goobers. Like their equivalents on the left.
        Because Left – Right = Zero (for nearly 50 years now)

  11. part 2

    This Wikipedia entry cites me as a source on the history of the movement. I was Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of WA. Mine was one of the most cited source on anarchists vs minarchists, when it was still a topical issue. An excerpt from that source was published by the Center for a Stateless Society

    Translation: I’ve ACHIEVED a lot more than a babbling cyber-bully.

    xoxoxoxo
    -The Trotskyite

    1. Homebuyers would pay the 0.9% capital transaction tax

      Why the buyer? Is the seller paying 0.9% as well? If the seller is not, isn’t the buyer taking all the risk?

      Nice job, I think. But you ignored the Federal Reserve market manipulation factory.

      1. Homebuyers would pay the 0.9% capital transaction tax

        YES!

        Why the buyer?

        THAT’S WHO PAYS SALES TAXES!

        Is the seller paying 0.9% as well? If the seller is not, isn’t the buyer taking all the risk?

        It’s on the TRANSACTION … not on the PROFIT … WHICH IS THE FUCKING POINT.

        But you ignored the Federal Reserve market manipulation factory.

        Again ignorant of SALES TAXES

        He speaks of my Liberty Issues Tax Plan
        9% on income above the poverty level,
        9% sales tax on personal consumption and
        0.9% sales tax on capital acquisition.
        (As a structure to also finance New Federalism — since states REFUSED “devolving.”)

        INSTEAD OF A 30% “FAIR” TAX
        Or Ron Paul’s “Repeal the income tax, run the entire federal gummint in FICA taxes” (for VERY gullible goobers)

        ANY single flat tax is for idiots, right-wing goobers and the Paulista Cult, but I repeat myself.
        a) Switching from income only to consumption only would punish ALL consumption instead of SOME investment, form the supply side to the demand-side.
        b) Libertarians take neither side.
        c) Progressive tax rates subsidize roughly half the entire tax burden for the core middle class. (DUH)
        d) The rich consume a tiny percentage of their income; the middle-class nearly all of theirs (including debt-financed)

        Because I’m a Trotskyite. (snort)
        And because Right – Left = Zero

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.