Economy

Just How Good Is Trump's Economy, Anyway?

While the 2017 tax cuts didn't deliver the results promised by Trump and his magical-thinking supporters, the administration has delivered some economic expansion, some job creation, and some investment growth.

|

If Donald Trump has his way in November's presidential election, he'll coast to victory on the strength of the economy.

The U.S. job market, President Trump tweeted in September, currently has its "all time best unemployment numbers, especially for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians & Women." Those numbers, which only grew stronger in the final months of the year, followed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the 2017 law that Trump has, with typical hyperbole, described as "the largest package of tax cuts and reforms in American history."

Even as the president faced a trial in the U.S. Senate, the stock market was up, unemployment was down, and average families were earning more than ever before. The week the Senate held its final vote in the impeachment trial, he delivered a State of the Union address that opened with an extended brag about the strength of the nation's economy, which he called "the best it has ever been."  That is why Trump's 2020 campaign message can be condensed into a single tweet: "How do you impeach"—or in the electoral case, beat—"a President who has helped create perhaps the greatest economy in the history of our Country?"

For his Democratic rivals, the answer is to downplay the economy's gains or to deny its strength altogether. At one Democratic primary debate last year, candidates were asked what they would say to a voter who dislikes Trump but likes his economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) rejected the premise, saying that for ordinary people, the economy "ain't great." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) dismissed economic gains as a "rise in corporate profits" that are "not being felt by millions of families across the country." Former Vice President Joe Biden insisted, "The middle class is getting killed. The middle class is getting crushed."

In the run-up to the 2020 election, then, even the economy has become a partisan issue. As Amber Wichowsky, a political scientist at Marquette University who has studied how economic issues affect voters' political views, recently told The New York Times, "Partisans have a strong desire to interpret the economy in a way that benefits their 'team.'"

Yet there are real, nonpartisan answers to be found in the countless economic data points that paint a picture of America's economic health. And those data tell us that in many respects, the state of our economy is strong in ways that can be attributed to Trump administration policies. The stock indices are at historic highs. JPMorgan Chase predicts another 8 percent increase in the value of the S&P 500 in 2020 as the economy "reaccelerates." Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs Research forecasts steady U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 2.3 percent through this year.

At the same time, the economy has notable weaknesses—some of which are a product of Trump's actions as well. In short, neither simple partisan narrative tells the full story.

Jobs

The job situation under Trump is a clear success. The unemployment rate just hit a 50-year low, real wages are up, and job creation looks good—especially when compared with expectations. In its latest forecast before the 2016 election, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the economy would add 1.9 million jobs in the next three years. In fact, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the first 35 months of the Trump administration saw the economy add almost 6.7 million jobs, beating the forecast by more than 350 percent.

That figure should be kept in perspective. As it happens, during the same period in President George W. Bush's second term, the economy gained 6 million jobs. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, during the first 35 months of President Barack Obama's second term, the economy added 6.8 million jobs.

Overall, though, Trump's numbers are very good, especially considering that the economy is in its 11th straight year of expansion. That's no small achievement: The longer an expansion lasts, the harder it is to add jobs. And during the last 50 years, the economy has experienced a contraction, on average, every seven years. Under Trump, this run of economic expansion has lasted far longer than is typical.

Taxes and Trade

These strong numbers have prompted many to declare the 2017 TCJA, which slashed tax rates for individuals and corporations while increasing the deficit by an estimated $1.5 trillion over a decade, an unmitigated success.

Although it was unwise to lower taxes without significantly cutting spending, the legislation itself was probably positive on net—particularly its reduction of America's unusually high corporate tax rate. Defenders, however, made a mistake by framing the tax cut as a major relief for the middle class.

The middle class wasn't and still isn't shouldering very much of the income-tax burden: Most income taxes are paid by higher-income earners. In 2013, the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 10 percent of the population was roughly 70 percent, while the share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 90 percent of income earners was about 30 percent, according to research from the Tax Foundation based on IRS data.

In addition, other key provisions of the law—like doubling the standard deduction and adding new tax credits for the middle class—were never likely to provide much economic boost.

A more promising approach to producing growth would have been to pair the corporate tax reduction from 35 percent to 21 percent with a provision allowing firms to immediately write off the cost of new equipment. In theory, those changes would spur investments, causing wages over time to rise. At the time, however, conservative advocates for the tax cuts argued that reductions in the individual side were necessary to get the support necessary to pass such large corporate tax relief. The corporate tax cuts were viewed as politically impossible without some reduction for the middle class.

It didn't work out that way. As American Enterprise Institute's James Pethokoukis recently wrote, "The Trump tax cuts are looking like failed politics. They're not popular, polls suggest, and most people don't think they got a tax cut."

One possible reason for the disappointing public reaction: dramatic predictions made by many proponents that couldn't possibly hold up. For example, Trump surrogates and other supporters said the TCJA would, among other things, produce annual economic growth from 3 percent to 6 percent, boost average household incomes by at least $4,000 a year, and pay for themselves by increasing revenues overall. They also often implied that the impact would be immediate. The optimism was reinforced when a number of firms announced bonuses and higher pay initiatives shortly after the passage of the tax reform.

Compared with the administration and its boosters, most economists and investors had much more modest expectations for the TCJA. They knew that it would take time for the corporate tax cut to deliver growth and wage increases and that the payoff might become visible only months or years down the road. That's because the best case for the corporate tax cuts was never that companies would use their extra cash in the short term to raise workers' wages, extend paid leave, or offer other employee benefits. Nor was it that they would suddenly add many more workers to their payrolls.

The real case for the corporate tax cut was more subtle: Lowering marginal tax rates on investment gives companies an incentive to earn more taxable income, thus leading them to invest in other businesses as well as in upgrading and expanding their facilities. This additional investment, in turn, raises workers' productivity and ultimately leads to higher wages. But it's a process that takes time.

Nearly two years later, we can start to look back and determine if any of these things have happened. The U.S. economy definitely grew—but not at the 3 percent (or more) annual rate predicted by the administration. In 2018, the year after the TCJA was adopted, the economy grew by 2.9 percent. This was an improvement from 2016 and 2017 but roughly in line with 2014 and 2015. We don't yet have final numbers for 2019, but GDP growth is expected to be around 2.2 percent, giving an average growth rate of 2.5 percent for Trump's first three years in office—similar to the first three years of Obama's second term.

How much of the growth in output can be attributed to the tax cuts? Most estimates suggest that in 2018, the TCJA increased GDP by 0.3 percent to 0.5 percent, while the CBO projects that the increase will be 0.6 percent for 2019.

When it comes to investment growth, assessing the impact of the law gets more complicated. But the answer matters a great deal, since a boost in investment is one of the main channels by which the tax reform was supposed to deliver economic and wage growth.

As it turns out, investment did accelerate significantly in 2018. Wages also grew by 3 percent—a boost that mostly benefited workers at the bottom of the income distribution. Yet that's a far cry from the 7.8 percent wage growth that would have been needed in order for the TCJA to deliver on its promise of a $4,000 increase in average household income, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Moreover, the investment uptick didn't last. Data from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis Research Division show that capital investment growth has been falling since fall 2018. Correlation is not causation, so this doesn't mean that the tax cuts are the reason investment fell. But it does raise some doubt about claims that the cuts would cause a significant increase in investment—an outcome that proponents of the corporate tax cut, including me, predicted.

Several things could be going on. First, it's worth noting that in both pre– and post–tax cut forecasts, business investment had been projected to slow down. In other words, investment in 2018 was beating the forecast. So this could simply be a return to the predicted trend. Second, the growth in capital expenditures could be taking longer than expected to materialize. Third, the effects of the tax cuts on investments could be undercut by non-TCJA factors, such as lower oil prices or the grounding of Boeing's 737 MAX airliners.

Another strong countervailing force, of course, could be the president's trade war. According to the Tax Foundation, the tariffs have reduced long-run GDP by 0.26 percent. The erratic announcements of tariffs, the resulting increase in costs for many American producers, and the predictable retaliation by foreign governments all slowed global growth and negatively affected business confidence in 2019. In turn, many companies were obliged to freeze projects or to defer investment plans. One recent study from the Federal Reserve found that any benefits U.S. manufacturers might have gained from reduced foreign competition were probably canceled out by the effects of retaliatory tariffs abroad and more expensive goods at home.

In other words, without the TCJA, the trade war—which has produced a recession in manufacturing—would almost certainly have dampened capital expenditures even further than it did.

Debt and Deficits

Trump's trade war isn't the only policy this administration has pursued with the potential to moderate or cancel out the beneficial effects of the 2017 tax cuts. Overspending is another.

In 2016, right before Trump took office, federal spending was $3.9 trillion. Two years later, that number had risen to $4.1 trillion. During the same period, the federal deficit grew from $585 billion to almost $1 trillion—with trillion-dollar deficits expected to continue for years to come. Total expenditures for this year include at least $28 billion in bailout payments to farmers to make up for the pain inflicted by the trade war.

The president is not fully responsible for this spending frenzy; Congress has failed to abide by its own budget processes for years and has made a series of bipartisan deals to raise both domestic and military spending. But Trump's utter lack of interest in fiscal discipline—including repeatedly declaring that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, the biggest long-term drivers of the federal debt—seems to have encouraged Republicans in Congress, who were happy enough to overspend anyway, to completely abandon any pretense of fiscal responsibility.

All of this fueled an expansion in the federal debt from $19 trillion at the beginning of 2016 to $22 trillion at the end of 2018. It's unclear how big a toll this red ink has taken on the economy, but I am quite certain it has had one. In the wake of the financial crisis, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff published a paper called "Growth in a Time of Debt," which concluded that when gross debt as a share of GDP increases beyond 90 percent, economic growth slows. The paper was widely cited among commentators, academics, and politicians in the debate surrounding austerity and fiscal policy in debt-burdened economies. Unfortunately, some data errors allowed skeptics to discredit Reinhart and Rogoff's findings.

A recent review of the literature, however, reveals that high government debt ratios do have negative effects on economic growth rates. The question of how much growth is lost from higher debt remains a matter of debate. But there's little doubt that over time, carrying large amounts of public debt has damaging economic effects.

Deregulation

What about deregulation? In his first week in office, Trump issued Executive Order 13771, titled "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs," which requires that "for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process."

The White House claims that "under the President's leadership, the Administration has cut 8 and a half regulations for every new rule, far exceeding his promise to cut two regulations for every new one." The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimates that after five to 10 years, this new approach to federal regulation will have raised real incomes by $3,100 per household per year.

This sort of claim is hard to check, and it seems overly optimistic. Still, Federal Register data compiled by the Center for Regulatory Studies at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where I work, reveals that the total number of federal regulations has indeed stalled in recent years.

That is a positive trajectory compared to the Obama administration. Yet simply counting the rules doesn't fully capture their impact. The number of economically significant regulations is growing more today than it did under President Ronald Reagan. It may be that the Trump administration picked the low-hanging fruit in 2017 and 2018 and has now reached its deregulatory potential. But this raises some doubt as to how much wage growth we can really expect to result from Trump's deregulation efforts.

Does It Matter?

If economic performance is what ultimately decides national elections, November should be a cakewalk for Trump. While the 2017 tax cuts didn't deliver the results promised by the president and his magical-thinking supporters, the administration has delivered some continued economic expansion, some job creation, and some investment growth, followed by some wage increases. Time will tell how durable those benefits are.

Does it matter, politically speaking? In fact, there is some reason to think that voters prioritize economics above other issues. According to a new survey from CNBC, when asked what "matters the most to you right now," 24 percent of Americans cite jobs and the economy, first among all responses, ahead of health care, immigration, and the environment.

Historically, the state of the economy is one of the best predictors of presidential elections. And today, most people are feeling pretty good: Only 21 percent of Americans say they're worse off now than they were four years ago. Although the latest RealClearPolitics polling average shows that 56 percent of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction, that result is better than the 62 percent Americans who were pessimistic in November 2016.

Yet according to the CNBC poll, only 34 percent of Americans say the next presidential election will be about the economy. The current levels of ideological division may seriously diminish the potency of "the state of the economy" as a predictive variable in 2020, since partisan voters are likely to interpret the economic information available to them in a way that suits their political beliefs. The truth is that no one knows what the economic performance of the last four years means for the president's re-election chances.

Trump's Legacy

Trump's legacy will probably not depend on how the economy fares during his presidency. I suspect he will be remembered more for his lack of ethics, his juvenile language, his online bullying, his callous immigration policy, his admiration for foreign despots, his personal insecurities, his payment of hush money to a porn star—and, of course, for being impeached.

But there is little question that the Trump economy is, at least as of the first days of 2020, doing well. While presidents tend to have less control over economic outcomes than they—or the public—like to believe, at least some of the current success is due to policies implemented by this administration. Then again, Trump inherited an economy that was already in reasonably good shape. He has mostly managed not to mess it up.

For all of Trump's many failures to grasp economic principles (especially when it comes to the trade war), he exhibits no desire to be a full-scale social engineer. His worst economic instincts reflect standard-issue 17th century mercantilist fallacies. Humankind has flirted with, and often fallen head-over-heels in love with, these fallacies for centuries. They are damaging. They are maddening. And they're inexcusable in the modern era. But they don't represent the sort of calamitous wholesale restructuring of the economy promoted by the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

In short, the president is a protectionist spendthrift. But he is not a socialist or a grand economic designer of any kind. And these days, that goes a long way toward keeping entrepreneurs and investors happy to create and compete in U.S. markets.

This doesn't make Trump a free marketeer or even a decent president. But it does help to explain the continued support he receives from the business community, which in turn explains—at least in part—the stock market's current buoyancy.

We are lucky to have an incredibly rich, resilient, and robust economy. The American economic system is not a delicate flower rooted in shallow or nutrient-poor institutional soil. Instead, it is a hardy oak, deeply planted in ground that's fed and watered by well-maintained institutions under which property and contract rights are reasonably secure and risk taking and innovation are generally rewarded. As long as our economy continues to be open and free, it is likely to keep growing.

Advertisement

NEXT: This South Carolina City Is Crushing Its Own Food Truck Economy

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.

  1. Unrelenting.
    Looking forward to 4 more years of the tears.

    1. I think subliminally even they know he’s getting re-elected toom though they’ll never admit it because it kills them. Biden is practically already a corpse.

      1. ITT Tony sneaks back in to corps fuck a thread because he lost literally every argument and ran away until no one else was left, as is his wont.

    2. The people who figure there are enough half-educated bigots and superstitious slack-jaws left in America to give Trump another chance at an Electoral College trick shot are ready for replacement.

      1. Well said, Art.

        All available data show Drumpf performed strongest in 2016 in the lowest income brackets, with Clinton dominating among medium- to high-earners. And even with all those poor people supporting him, he still needed a THREE CUSHION BANKSHOT to win. (Despite actually losing by 3 million votes.)

        #PoorPeopleVoteRepublican

      2. Haha. A dirty old useless hippie who’s been waiting for the age of Aquarius since the 60s. Too funny.

        Keep waiting rev. We won’t even bother to replace you. Only useful things need to be replaced.

        1. But Artie is completely correct. The only thing that is in question is the timing of the replacement. Conservatives always lose in the end. That is their role and destiny in life. They are the necessary brakes on change that maintain the momentum of what has worked in the past. But change is inevitable. Let me repeat that. Conservatives are necessary to make sure society doesn’t progress too fast in a disastrous direction. But society does progress and the mores of the past are eventually left behind. Ever wonder why the balance of liberals and conservatives is what it is? Perhaps this is the optimum balance for safe progress.

      3. “The people who figure there are enough half-educated bigots and superstitious slack-jaws left in America to give Trump another chance at an Electoral College trick shot are ready for replacement.”

        Wave them arms and point here and there, asshole bigot.
        I hope you sold every bit of whatever equity you owned the night Trump got elected; shitbag lefties deserve it.

        1. Oh, and open wide!
          It’s going to be a pleasure to jam Trump down your throat again, you pathetic piece of shit.

    3. #4MoreYearsOfLeftistTears

      That is a catchy slogan!

  2. If economic performance is what ultimately decides national elections, November should be a cakewalk for Trump. While the 2017 tax cuts didn’t deliver the results promised by the president and his magical-thinking supporters, The administration has delivered some continued economic expansion, some job creation, and some investment growth, followed by some wage increases.

    FTFY

    1. “While the 2017 tax cuts didn’t deliver the results promised by Trump and his magical-thinking supporters,”

      That Tax cuts spur growth is now “magical thinking” at Reason cuz #TDS.

      The lack of self awareness at Reason reveals just what a bubble they must live in. No one noticed that they’re now snickering at something as “magical thinking” which they have promoted for decades, and will be promoting tomorrow as long as the benefits aren’t tied to Trump.

      1. Wow, that’s one of the most blatant goalpost shifts I’ve ever seen.

        It’s not that ‘tax cuts cause growth’ is magical thinking (since they do), but the specific results promised by the president were overly optimistic and based on magical thinking. Did you even read the article? He acknowledges that there has been *some* effect, just nowhere near as much as Trump said there would be, and that the effects Trump was claiming were so implausible as to require magical thinking.

        1. Reading what the article actually said instead of inferring what you wish it had said isn’t goal post shifting, you halfwitted mouth breathing dick sucking piece of shit.

    2. Reason is now Tax Collector for the Welfare State

  3. Second, the growth in capital expenditures could be taking longer than expected to materialize.

    That’s because you expected the growth to happen too quickly. The corporate tax reduction from 35 to 21% is the MOST important item in the economic policy in 40+ years. It will encourage companies to locate new businesses in the US; high taxes strongly discouraged this. But companies don’t expand because of the tax rate, they choose WHERE to expand in part due to tax rates. Check back in another 3 years and you will see clearly the impact. The tariffs will help in this regard (provided they are eventually rolled back), as will the coronavirus freak out. Trade agreements will also help, particularly with the newly independent UK.

    Trump’s economic policy is the best we’ve seen in 100+ years.

    1. She also says there was an early surge in investment that slowed in the fall of 2018.

      Was there some political development in the fall of 2018 that might have led business leaders to expect a less-friendly climate for investment?

      1. Certainly not, the president is in charge of everything. Only magical thinkers would suppose that Trump isn’t a mystical daemon.

  4. “Trump and his magical-thinking supporters”

    yWell that’s fun. It sounds like a line pulled straight from a sneery, fedora-tipping internet atheist’s bag of rhetorical tricks.

    Let me try;
    “Trump and his economic sky-fairy believers”
    “Trump and his flying-spaghetti-policy devotees”

    1. To be clear, your justification for believing in an anthropomorphic creator of the cosmos despite the total lack of evidence supporting such a belief is “fedoras”?

      1. Reading comprehension has left the building.

      2. Hey kids, don’t be an internet atheist. It’s unbecoming.

        1. I have to be a theist whilst on the internet?

          1. Gee, I’d hoped you’d died.

            1. That makes you a bad person.

              1. He probably just wants your suffering to stop from the pathetic, bitter life you live.

              2. “That makes you a bad person.”

                Hoping the world is a better place does nothing of the sort.
                I’m sorry you weren’t aborted and further sorry every day you continue to live.
                You exist to the detriment of humanity; every day you are not yet dead is a day the world does not improve.
                Please fuck off and die, and I am in no way joking; you ARE a reason the world is not yet as prosperous and well off as it could be.
                Fuck off and die; make the world a better place.

                1. I probably pay for your welfare checks.

                  1. You don’t even pay for your welfare checks.

        2. Better than being a grown adult who believes in imaginary friends.

      3. Tony believes it’s all right to shit on the religious, but don’t you dare mock his beliefs. Blasphemy like that is an especial offense for his ilk, because the one he pays obeisance to resides in the mirror.

        1. Yes I spend time at reason because I hate hearing criticism of my views.

          1. You spend time here because you like getting fisted – regularly.

          2. You spend time on Reason because you’re paid to. You also do it because you’re a terrible, awful, evil person who likes to indulge your garbage nature by attacking those insufficiently bien pensant.

            1. Just the willfully ignorant. It’s a compliment. I know that going literally anywhere else on the internet that’s infested by Trumptards will just be a constant downpour of shit, unlike the thoughtful, reasoned debate we have here.

              1. Tony,, you are one of the most ignorant posters here. You are the product of a weak mind, and a weak education. You’ve also shown yourself to be a likely sociopath.

                This is typical of progressivekind. No fixed morals or values. Just whatever you think you can use to your advantage in the moment.

    2. “Trump and his magical-thinking supporters” are no different than Bernie and his magical-thinking supporters or Joe Biden and his magical-thinking supporters. They all think there’s a coat closet off the Oval Office where they keep the Economy Machine and if you pull the right levers and push the right buttons and twist the right dials you can make the economy tap dance and whistle Dixie as you please. (They’re knocking out a wall and putting in an annex to the coat closet where they’ll install a Climate Machine, by the way, since the climate is no more difficult to control than the economy.) I have no idea why other countries don’t test their would-be leaders in their ability to operate the Economy Machines they all presumably have installed in their government offices. Or maybe some of them just have broken Economy Machines – Venezuela clearly has either a defective machine or a defective operator.

      Or maybe it’s the case that Economics, like all the other so-called “Social Sciences”, isn’t actually a science – they can do a pretty good job at coming up with a plethora of explanations of why things happened after the fact but they’re absolutely useless in terms of predicting what’s going to happen in the future. You can create a certain set of incentives and disincentives to behavior but, given that human beings have free will, you can’t accurately predict how people are going to react and there’s always going to be unintended and unforeseen consequences. Maybe the best you can do with running the economy is just get the hell out of the way. Cutting taxes and cutting regulations is a good start on getting the hell out of the way. If the government would stop spending so goddamn much money and sticking me and my kids and my grandkids with bill, that would be even better.

      1. I approve of this message!

      2. “Worse government policies can destroy economies but better government policies can’t improve them, cuz #OrangeManBad!”

      3. ^ this

      4. “Making predictions is hard. Especially about the future.”

        – Y. Berra

    3. Oh, good. I was hoping Lament would stop by with more of his “WAAAHHH WE’RE BEING FED TO THE LIONS” idiocy after his stupid little song yesterday bemoaning how victimized Christians are for not being allowed to force other people’s children to pray to their imaginary friend on the taxpayer’s dime.

      1. Fuck off Jeff.
        Your demagogic progressivism and atheistic zealotry ideology holds a sacral and religious function for you that’s far creepier and more intense than any Salafist mullahs.
        Hypocrite.

        1. Mamma, are You feeling persecuted because others are NOT giving You Proper Credit, for kissing God’s Sacred Ass, by taking as MUCH of the Bible as is at all possible, LITERALLY?

          Well, lemme tell ya, I am FAR more Holy Than You, even! Look at what I can take literally!

          God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE!

          Our that them thar VALUES of society outta come from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they’d be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven’t actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must’ve broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they’d be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we’ve broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can’t weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he’s come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There’s working on Sunday. There’s also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord’s priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we’re finally there… God’s Word COMMANDS us such that we’ve got to kill EVERYBODY!!!

          (I am still looking for that special exception clause for me & my friends & family… I am sure I will find it soon!)

          1. You might try actually reading the *whole* Bible at some point. At the very least pick up a red-letter edition and read what Jesus himself actually said rather than what some of the assholes who built the church said – especially Paul…

            1. Mikey Hihn is a demented old man dying of alzheimer’s in a state-funded old age facility who self-admittedly engages in coprophagia. Feel free it ignore everything he says. The people you see on the street talking to a lamp post with a needle hanging out of their arm are in better mental condition.

  5. “This doesn’t make Trump a free marketeer or even a decent president. But it does help to explain the continued support he receives from the business community, which in turn explains—at least in part—the stock market’s current buoyancy.”

    TDS Rule 11:
    If a column implicitly praises something associated with Trump action, a To-Be-Sure-I-Hate-Trump graf must be included.

    1. To be sure, God is a superstition and you are not an educated person. Admitting you love Trump is just embarrassing for you and probably everyone who knows you.

      1. Are you as disappointed as I am that Elizabeth Warren dropped out? I recall you confidently predicted she’d go all the way to the White House: “Your next president will be Elizabeth Warren. Choke on it, morons.”

        I guess we failed to account for the rampant sexism among Democratic primary voters.

        #LibertariansForWarren

        1. You’re not wrong.

          1. And here’s another one.

            “As soon as Bernie cuckoos himself off the stage, Warren is staged to be your next president. God bless this fine nation.”

            I guess in a way it’s a good thing Democratic voters are so sexist. Because at least they won’t nominate Tulsi Gabbard.

            #LibertariansForBiden
            #(OrBernie)

            1. Well you can’t say we’re ageist.

              1. He’s not laughing with you he’s laughing at you.

                1. As we all are!!

      2. You have really bad reading comprehension Tony.

        1. I comprehend that anyone who things “TDS” is a thing is a fucking idiot.

          1. Poor Tony. Vodka for breakfast again.

            1. It’s noon somewhere.

              1. It’s stupid where you are.

      3. “To be sure, God is a superstition and you are not an educated person. Admitting you love Trump is just embarrassing for you and probably everyone who knows you.”

        Fantastic, I obviously hit a nerve. I must of posted something good.
        Angry whining from the authoritarian demagogue who holds an actual psychotic hate for Christmas and children, is a plus.

        1. His bitterness always makes me smile.

      4. “ To be sure, God is a superstition ”

        Which would be an interesting discussion. I am a theist myself. I have a great joke I read that people here may like.

        “Several centuries ago the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert to Catholicism or leave Italy.There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community so the Pope offered a deal.

        He would hold a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy. If the Pope won, they’d have to convert or leave.

        The Jewish people met and picked an aged and wise rabbi to represent them in the debate. However, as the rabbi spoke no Italian and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, both sides agreed that it would be a “silent” debate.

        On the chosen day the Pope and rabbi sat opposite each other. The Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers.

        The rabbi looked back and raised one finger and shook it at the Pope.

        Next the Pope waved his finger around his head.

        The rabbi pointed to the ground where he sat.

        The Pope brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine.

        The rabbi pulled out an apple.

        With that, the Pope stood up and declared himself beaten and said that the rabbi was too clever. The Jews could stay in Italy.

        Later the cardinals met with the Pope and asked him what had happened.

        The Pope said, “First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up a single finger, shaking it to remind me there is still only one God common to both our beliefs.”

        “Then, I waved my finger around my head to show him that God is all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God is also right here with us.”

        “I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin.”

        “He beat me at every move and I could not continue.”

        Meanwhile, the Jewish community gathered to ask the rabbi how he’d won.

        “I haven’t a clue,” the rabbi said. “First, he told me that we had three days to get out of Italy so I shook my finger saying no.”

        “Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I told him that we were staying right here.”

        “And then what?” asked a woman.

        “Who knows?” said the rabbi. “He took out his lunch so I took out mine.”

        1. Just to be clear “ a theist” is not a typo. I am theist.

          1. Are you enjoying Tony’s bigotry?

  6. The primary objective of Koch / Reason libertarianism is to create an economy that works best for the richest people on the planet. Therefore I can prove the Drumpf economy is abysmal with a single statistic. Brace yourselves!

    Charles Koch current net worth: $55.4 billion

    This unacceptably low figure is the result of Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies, as well as his complete mismanagement of the coronavirus. Or as we New York Times readers call it, the TRUMPVIRUS.

    #DrumpfRecession

    1. I think this is better. Trump is orange. Corona virus is deadly. Therefore i propose we call the corona virus…Orange Hitler.
      So original, i know.

      1. There should be a drink called an Orange Hitler.

    2. DRINK!

  7. “As it turns out, investment did accelerate significantly in 2018. Wages also grew by 3 percent—a boost that mostly benefited workers at the bottom of the income distribution.”

    Trump is office because he appealed to blue collar workers in rust belt swing states–who were registered Democrats. Despite all the growth that happened in the economy generally during the Obama years, that wasn’t helping the people in that demographic at all. Trump’s policies have done plenty to help those people specifically.

    One of the big ones was simply ObamaCare requirements that made it more expensive for employers to hire relatively unskilled labor and keep it employed. That Obama added regulations that, for instance, required firms to offer their employees health insurance if they were full time–and considered full time working 30 hours per week–made plenty of companies slash the hours of the employees they already had and forced unskilled workers who were already having trouble finding a job to compete with workers who already had a job and were looking for a second one to compensate for all the hours they lost because of ObamaCare.

    The reason Trump beat Hillary Clinton was because Obama neglected the blue collar middle class of the rust belt, which has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since before the Reagan Democrats. Trump’s policies have been tailored to benefit these people the most since he took office (with Trump’s trade war with China being the lone exception), and they have benefited the most from his policies.

    The reason Biden has come back from the dead in the polls is because African-American voters are nostalgic for the time of the Obama administration, when issues that impacted them were given a greater priority. If Biden bets the outcome of the 2020 election, however, on trying to make traditional blue collar Democrats in the states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin nostalgic for the Obama years–when their interests weren’t just ignored but abused by the Obama administration–then he will lose.

    1. “is because African-American voters are nostalgic for the time of the Obama administration, when issues that impacted them were given a greater priority.”

      Lowest Black unemployment EVAH.
      Wages rising because of Trump tax and immigration policy.

      Trump has even been specifically pandering to Blacks with criminal justice reform and piles of money for historically black colleges.

      How did that half African fellow do more for American Blacks?

      1. He opened the border so the ones who are struggling got to compete for entry level jobs with illegals. Which really helped their wages.

  8. Continuing the recent american tradition of unfunded spending and running up the deficit even when times are good. Thanks a lot boomers.

  9. Overall, though, Trump’s numbers are very good

    Robby Soave, is that you?

    Say one thing for the writers at Jacobin: they might be completely full of shit, but at least they don’t talk down to their readers. Their elegant prose is a pleasure to read, even as you’re rolling your eyes at the nonsensicality of their ideas.

    1. Overall, though, Trump’s numbers are very good”

      There isn’t anything about that statement–or anything else I see in this piece–that would qualify as full of shit.

      1. I didn’t say they’re full of shit. There’s nothing factually wrong with the statement. What I’m saying is that slapdash statements like these are examples of the facile, puerile prose that tries to pass itself off as analysis on this site. This is the sort of filler line that any teacher or editor worth his salt would insist be reworked for clarity or culled as redundant. It’s lazy, low-effort writing, but it’s about the best we can expect from the writers at Reason these days.

        1. There isn’t anything wrong with the statement you quoted, and this is what you wrote after quoting that statement:

          “Say one thing for the writers at Jacobin: they might be completely full of shit . . . “

          Nothing in the statement you quoted or anywhere else in this article can be accurately described as “full of shit”. This is a perfectly legitimate article written by a respected economist making an honest and objective evaluation of Trump’s economic policies and their impact on wages and unemployment for a general audience in an election year. The approach in this article should be emulated by other writers here at Reason.

          1. I like you, Ken—you’re arguably the most knowledgeable and articulate poster here—but you seem to have some serious reading comprehension issues. I’m clearly saying it’s the Jacobin writers who are full of shit, despite the fact that I find their elegant, well-crafted prose a pleasure to read. In contrast, I find the writing at Reason to be poorly constructed and amateurish by comparison, even when I agree with the ideas being conveyed. One magazine presents itself as a serious publication, despite promulgating sheer nonsense, while the other has degenerated into little more than a thinly veiled and poorly edited blog.

            1. We are lucky to have an incredibly rich, resilient, and robust economy.
              Another example of the silly, inane tripe peddled by the writers here. This would barely pass muster in a high school term paper or college essay. It has no place in a piece written for a presumably educated, intelligent adult readership

              1. It’s all luck. Nobody did any work.
                Dontcha know?

        2. You are 100% correct. As an editor I find myself cringing at least four times every article. They just can’t help editorializing, because otherwise the narrative might stray off Orange Man Bad.

          1. Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

            We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

            See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
            “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

            https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/

            He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

            All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

            Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

            Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

            1. Idiocy like this is exactly why I’m actually considering voting for the idiot. There’s plenty of real things you can complain about, you don’t have to make shit up and editorialize all the time.

              Well, I guess you do if you’re just a propaganda outlet.

              1. Squirrel is a raving lunatic.

                1. R Mac is an egotistical narcissist in the Sacred Image of Dear Leader.

                  1. I don’t recall him making everything about himself. So your comment is nonsensical. Although I suppose in your mind that statement is ‘narcissistic’ too.

                2. Well, it’s a Mikey Hihn sockpuppet.

              2. These are not “made-up shit” things; they are FACTS!

                http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

                “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

                1. No. By and large that really is made-up shit, Sqrls.

                  1. Because You have personally double-checked all of the sources of The Atlantic? Because You are omniscient? Because you Know and See All Things? Because Your Consciousness co-inhabits and observes ALL of the Doings of The Donald? A special case JUST for The Donald, or are you watching ALL of us? PLEASE clue us IN, Oh Mighty One!

                    1. Right, but you eat shit.

                    2. Wow, a globalist neo-Marxist publication says bad things about Trump? HOLY FUCK MIKEY! YOU’VE GOT THEM ON THE ROPES NOW!!!!!!

              3. Yeah, it’s like they don’t even realize that they’re influencing people to vote against whatever they support just cuz they’re such whiny dooshes.

                Or maybe they do? Are they trolls? Russian assets? Working for trump/2020? Hmmmmm……

                Haha.

    2. Well, Reason conceded all of their points at the great Jacobin debate and acknowledged the objective merit of the Marxist critique of capitalism, so I guess the florid language is good for something!

  10. Oh no! Reason isn’t praising Trump and giving him credit for everything! They hate Trump! They’re all voting for Bernie! Trump gets credit for everything! He’s the greatest president EVER! He should be president for life! All hail Trump! All hail Trump!

    Now let us pray.

    Our Trump, which art in D.C., Hallowed be Thy name…

    1. Sarcasm. You’re not all that good at it.

      1. Non stop drivel. You’re quite good at it.

        1. Nobody in here has even remotely stated what your hyperbolic claim is asserting. This is just your own pathetic inability to do any analysis beyond a facial examination. You hide your ignorance and shallow arguments through attempting to call anyone who disagrees with you immoral or in this case a trump acolyte. It is pathetic. You do this whenever you start to lose an argument. And now you are doing it to start arguments. Not even jeff was that pathetic. So congrats. You’re more pathetic than even chem Jeff.

          1. You know, if any of that was true I might be insulted. Yes it’s hyperbolic. But it’s also based upon the truth. You, lc, Nards and the rest of the Trump worshipers go absolutely ballistic when anyone says anything remotely negative about the president or his policies.

            Try it. Say one thing negative about him or his policies. I doubt you can.

            1. That’s what I thought.

            2. You go ballistic at the thought of what you say, and have decided that you have nothing else to contribute beyond bitching that people are critical of Reason writers for being shitty writers.
              You hate Trump supporters. We get it, and it’s noted. Move on or shut the fuck up, because you’re only embarrassing yourself

              1. I only amplify your shrillness and make fun of you for taking criticism of your Dear Leader personally. I only appear ballistic because I’m mocking you for assuming all criticism of Dear Leader comes from hatred of Trump, America, and cheeseburgers.

                No I won’t shut the fuck up. I will continue to mock you.

                Is this when you get all tough guy and threaten violence from behind your keyboard?

                1. “Is this when you get all tough guy and threaten violence from behind your keyboard?”

                  You’re thinking of DOL.

                2. You only succeed in making yourself look like a neurotic, lonely bitch

                3. You project more than a movie theater. Trump won. Take the L, you pathetic piece of partisan ass licking shit.

              2. If you hate Reason and the writers so much, why don’t you move on?

                If you can’t handle people pointing out your worship of Trump, why don’t you move on?

                All you do is bitch and moan about how Reason hates Trump, then you bitch and moan when people like me point it out. So why don’t you move on? You obviously hate Reason, hate the writers, hate anyone who criticizes Trump, and hate anyone who points out your deifying the man. So why don’t you move on?

                1. You’ve got some psychological issues, buddy.
                  Reason is a leftist rag, and you can’t handle it emotionally because you’ve wrapped up your identity with this publication.
                  I like Trump. I don’t worship him. But you can’t get that through your head because you’re wildly insecure and can’t deal with being challenged in your little “community”.
                  These are comment threads on the internet, not your fucking family, friends, and priest

                2. “I’M NOT BITCHING YOU’RE BITCHING!”

                  LOL. The most hilarious thing about you is that you actually think your retarded grade school level sophistry is actually incisive, like the impetuous freshman challenging the professor on the first day of class. It’s cute coming from 18 year olds. It’s just fucking sad coming from middle aged bloated alcoholic Marxists.

        2. That’s why I adopted this moniker back in 1999.

    2. I don’t think the criticism of some Reason staff has been completely misplaced, and if you react to Boehm’s, Binion’s, or Dalmia’s pieces–without reading them–as if they’re biased against Trump, you might be right 100% of the time.

      There’s no good reason to stoop to their level, but there’s also no good reason to pretend that there hasn’t been a high level of anti-Turmp bullshit sold around here as premium beef in recent years. Feed people around here that bullshit for long enough, and what used to be reflexive pro-Trump bullshit can start to seem like good sense. I blame that for a lot of the ideological perversity we see around here.

      Some of these people are to the left of Krugman on trade, and if pointing that out offends them, it isn’t because it suggests they care more about what’s happening in China than what’s happening to the American economy. It’s just that they think you’re calling them a bad name by saying they’re to the left of Krugman.

      1. Speaking of Dalmia, where is she? I don’t recall seeing a piece from her in weeks.

        1. She had a piece last week that was met with the usual outrage, hatred, screaming, and rending of clothes, because she dared to criticize Dear Leader.

          1. Good to know. I don’t have the luxury of camping out in this site at work like a lot of the regulars, so I’m sure I miss articles.

            1. If you look up top there’s a thing that says LATEST. You can use it to scroll down and see the articles for the day. I’m serious. Check it out.

              1. I hang out on the Latest tab, but I’m not on this site 24/7. If I’m in the mood to spend time catching up on older articles, I’m more likely to head over to Volokh.

              1. Ah, right, I did see that one. For some reason, the Shikha byline didn’t stick in my head.

                1. It was one of her better pieces. Still she went off the tracks pretty rapidly into projection.

                2. It should have been obvious with all the shrill wailing from the usual suspects about how she hates Trump and Reason hates Trump and anyone who doesn’t worship everything he does hates Trump and you aren’t a true libertarian if you don’t worship Trump and if you criticize Trump you voted for Obama…

                  1. The only shrill wailing is coming from you, sarc.
                    It’s pathetic

                    1. I’m sarcastically imitating you and your buddies wailing and gnashing your teeth when anyone criticizes a man who y’all have elevated to the status of a god.

                      “Boo hoo! Reason hates Trump! Waaaaah! If you say otherwise then you’re the one whining and crying! Not me! I’m rubber and you’re glue! Waaaaah! Another article that said something bad about Trump! Waaaaaah!”

                    2. “who y’all have elevated to the status of a god.”

                      Nobody pretends Trump’s a god, and 95% of the defending here is done as a reaction to the fake libertarian columnist’s and you fifty-center’s TDS.
                      To put it bluntly, it’s also fun, sarc, because all you authoritarian idiots literally think that he’s the devil.

                    3. You may think that’s what you’re doing, but it’s not.
                      You have neither the talent nor understanding of your subject for it.

                    4. Supporting the best available candidate who is also proven to be at least partially effective is elevating them to godhood?

                      Your concept of godhood is lacking.

                    5. You’re defending a woman who literally called for street violence against Republicans. Congrats, you sadsack Marxist piece of shit.

        2. Seems like Shikha is being phased out. Fewer articles, and the last one didn’t keep a link on the front page for very long.

          There was one in the last week or glorifying globalism over nationalism, where Shikha declares her allegiance to the New World Order as a “citizen of the world”.

          I recommend reading it, because she hit all the major points in which Reason sells out Americans in particular and self-government generally to the globalist ruling class.

          https://reason.com/2020/03/03/the-new-right-wing-program-of-cultural-nationalism-is-un-american-and-illiberal/

    3. you’re still going with the max pathetic schtick.

      1. You still can’t find a single thing about Trump that isn’t wonderful and perfect.

        1. That’s because JesseSPAZ is “absolutely right” about all things at all times! He gets it from Dear Leader, who has repeatedly said that He has the “absolute right” to do All Things as Desired by any Whims of the Trumptatorship.

          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/president-trump-absolute-rights/607168/
          Donald Trump’s Strange and Dangerous ‘Absolute Rights’ Idea
          This is a profound misunderstanding of the American constitutional system.

          1. Hey sarc, you’ve earned the admiration of Mikey Hihn the crazy diaper-shitting old man suffering from senile dementia collecting welfare in a state-funded old age facility. Feels good to be on the right side of history, don’t it, you pathetic alcoholic Marxist piece of shit?

    4. WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! SOME PEOPLE DON’T HATE TRUMP AS MUCH AS I DO AND WON’T LET ME HAPPILY MARINATE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER!!!!!!!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Some serious analysts think that “it’s the economy, stupid” was a one-time right guess by James Carville, and that people are motivated by much different things this time around. Of course since Trump’s predictably hysterical management of the virus thing has tanked everyone’s investments, he won’t even have the economy going for him.

    But it’s mostly that he’s an insane freak and nobody wants him around anymore except fucking morons.

    1. In all seriousness he’s a heck of a lot less-evil than anyone the Dems will put forward.

      1. He’s one of history’s biggest grifters and a clear sociopath.

        Aw but Democrats want to raise taxes on billionaires. You’re not an insane moronic dogmatist at all.

        1. Billionaires create investments and jobs. It’s true. And they aren’t swimming in a pool of cash. Most of their billions exist in the form of ownership in businesses. How do you tax that? Make them sell off their investments? Who will buy them, knowing that your precious Dems will just take it away anyway? Think things through instead of acting on emotion.

          1. Should taxes ever go up for any reason?

            1. Should spending ever be cut for any reason?

                1. You could eliminate the DoD and it wouldn’t make a dent in the deficit. I’m talking about cutting the spending that’s driving the deficit. As in entitlements. As in wealth transfers. You down with cutting back on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

                  1. But you want to cut those things because you’re ideologically opposed to them. It wouldn’t matter if they were solvent.

                    Since cutting essential social services actually makes people’s lives more expensive, nothing is solved on the fiscal side. You just have to transfer wealth from less productive areas of the economy to more productive ones, like the social safety net.

                    1. I will take that as a no.

                    2. Which essential social services?

                    3. Food, shelter, healthcare, transportation, security. The usual stuff.

                    4. Food, shelter, healthcare, transportation, security. The usual stuff.

                      Thing is, once government becomes the supplier of basic rights, there are no limits on what will be called a basic right.

                      Why not free government internet for everyone? Who can live without the internet these days. Free smart phones? Can’t live without a smart phone. What about air fryers? Everyone has a right to healthy food, and with an air fryer you can fry stuff without the grease. That should be a basic right. What about humidifiers? Round here the air gets so dry during the winter that you’ll get nosebleeds. Gotta add humidity to the air in the house.

                    5. I think that letting the people decide what they want to collectively pay for, while perhaps not the most ideal situation imaginable, is a superior system to letting some despot or some fringe ideology make all such decisions for us.

                      Since you’re positing a slippery slope fallacy, why not start it with police and national defense? Your socialist programs are OK purely because you say so. I’m an evidence guy. Literally all the evidence in the world suggests healthier, wealthier, happier, and more efficient societies where there are strong, modern social safety nets. And every place that only has a military is a goddamn shithole you wouldn’t be caught dead in.

                    6. Food? Nope buy my own.
                      Shelter? Rent a privately built home.
                      Healthcare? Nope, pay my own.
                      Transportation? Nope, drive my own car.
                      Security? Nope carry my pistol.
                      What does the government do other than take my money?

                    7. Since you’re positing a slippery slope fallacy, why not start it with police and national defense? Your socialist programs are OK purely because you say so.

                      We’ve been over this. Government is force, and it should only use force when force is justified. Reacting to crime or foreign invasion is a legitimate use of force. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not. Unless you think it’s OK to go knock on the door of the richest guy on the block, point a gun at his head, and say “The rest of us on the block had a vote and we decided that it’s not fair that you have more stuff than us, and Paul down the street there is dirt poor. So I’m here to rob you and then spread the wealth around. Don’t like it and I’ll kill you.” That’s obviously unjust. Why does it become just when government does it?

                    8. Well, list some countries Tony.

                    9. Well, list some countries Tony.

                      My guess is that his list would be countries in Europe that have minimal militaries because they are protected by NATO, which basically means us.

                    10. Thats my guess too. Always good to compare countries that are completely different from each other.

                    11. Thing is, once government becomes the supplier of basic rights, there are no limits on what will be called a basic right.

                      Why not free government internet for everyone? Who can live without the internet these days. Free smart phones? Can’t live without a smart phone. What about air fryers? Everyone has a right to healthy food, and with an air fryer you can fry stuff without the grease. That should be a basic right. What about humidifiers? Round here the air gets so dry during the winter that you’ll get nosebleeds. Gotta add humidity to the air in the house.

                      These posts of yours in this subthread are great, sarc. Pithy, short, but encapsulate the basics really well. Wasted on the traffic-driving, shill Reason contractor, but still.

                    12. Gray_Jay you shouldn’t be so impressed by a cookie-cutter slippery-slope argument.

                      What if the people decide to elect representatives who will provide taxpayer-bought humidifiers? You can try to win elections on the opposite platform. That’s the option you have. We are not supposed to be subject to a tyranny, whether it be a person or an ideology.

                      In every civilized country on earth, the people get to decide how much of a public sector they want. If you think they chose wrong, convince them. It’s all you have to do.

                    13. We’re opposed to them because they’re unconstitutional. You want welfare? Do it in your home state of CA, or San Francisco. Maybe they will even subsidize your bath houses.

                    14. They’re objectively not unconstitutional until judicial review declares them so.

                    15. Dred Scott says, what.

        2. “He’s one of history’s biggest grifters and a clear sociopath.”
          Given the last Democrat presidents…how is that an objection from the Left?

    2. “…except fucking morons.”

      And you show up just in time.

      1. You guys are going to be really surprised about what’s actually going on in the world if you ever turn the spigot off that sends Sean Hannity’s mouth diarrhea into your face holes.

        1. Never listened to him or watched him in my life. As for ‘what’s actually going on in the world’, I’m sure you are fucking stooopid enough to think CNN is a reliable source.

          1. Based on how often the lefties here cry about Fox News, I’m starting to think they’re the ones actually watching it all the time.

            1. I can get through 5 minutes before my soul starts to hurt.

              So we all agree it’s all lies and Republican party propaganda?

                1. Thought you didn’t watch.

                  I do, and my assessment is accurate.

              1. Is 5 minute how long it takes for you to blow your load while you bitterly masturbate to Hannity’s nightly show?

              2. Really? What things has he said are lies? I never here specifics. Just assurances from progtards who have been ordered to think that from their overseers.

                1. There’s no hope for you and you shouldn’t even bother.

                  1. So you got nothing. The questions were clear and you hid from them.

        2. Faux News!

    3. He’s tanked their investments? The DJIA has sunk back to mid-October levels. That’s a routine—and long overdue—correction, probably triggered more by profit taking in the wake of the industrial slowdown in China and only secondarily related to the worldwide panic. We will almost certainly see a rise in equities as factories come back online, production ramps back up, and supply lines are restored. Even if the stock market doesn’t quite touch its previous highs prior to the election, voters will still be able to see that their portfolios are up with respect to four years ago.

      1. I don’t think presidents deserve either much credit or blame for what the globally interconnected economy does, and obviously I don’t think the DJIA is a very important measure of economic health, but Trump does take a lot of credit when both are doing well.

        The point is maybe perception about the economy is not always universally the most important thing, and the fact is regardless Trump has never had a majority of Americans or American voters who actually want him to be president, and he won’t in November, however much the Electoral College decides to fuck us again.

        1. We live in a republic, not a democracy. Show me where the word “democracy” is on either the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. You can’t. Because the founders were students of history and had nothing but disdain for majority rule. They knew what it leads to.

          1. Nobody anywhere at no time is advocating for a system of law by referendum. Your complete inability to grasp that can only speak to monumental stupidity or some kind of attempt at rhetorical mumbo-jumbo to defend Republicans being in power despite not having popular support in decades.

        2. I don’t think presidents deserve either much credit or blame for what the globally interconnected economy does, and obviously I don’t think the DJIA is a very important measure of economic health

          We have found something substantive on which we agree. This makes my day for some odd reason.

          1. While the statement is true in many cases, Trump deserves more credit than most. He ran on and cut the tax on corporations from 35 to 21%. THATs a BIG F*ING DEAL.

        3. I don’t think presidents deserve either much credit or blame for what the globally interconnected economy does, and obviously I don’t think the DJIA is a very important measure of economic health, but Trump does take a lot of credit when both are doing well.

          FTFY

          You don’t like the Electoral College? Tough luck, Tony. There is a defined process to change it. Try using it, and stop complaining about it.

        4. Lefties for mob rule!? What a surprise.

          1. I don’t get why you people think that 48% ruling over 52% is more fair.

            I get why southern racists felt that way.

            1. “I don’t get”

              Yeah, we know.

            2. That is because there is no popular vote, douchebag. You read the rules, then decided after you lost that it was no good. Even though your Harpy Queen only got a plurality of the vote, just like her rapist husband.

              1. It’s obviously and objectively an incredibly stupid way to elect the president. I’ve thought so for my whole adult life, and you would too if your favorite party didn’t happen to benefit from it.

                We get two choices for president and there is literally no reason why the less popular one should ever be able to win.

                1. Well Tony….there is always France. You might be happier there.

                  1. Indeed. Very attractive men. Beautiful architecture and excellent food. No libertarians.

                    1. Sounds like a place where you could finally win an argument.

        5. “…however much the Electoral College decides to fuck us again.”

          How ‘tarded do you have to be to continuing to whine over losing an election nearly four years ago?

          1. It’s more about the dead and suffering needlessly caused by Republican stupidity.

            1. Republicans are forcing them to make bad choices? Weird.

        6. Everything is so terrible and unfair.

        7. “however much the Electoral College decides to fuck us again.”

          You mean by doing their job according to the rules? Yes, democrats hate rules, unless they can change them for their own purposes on a whim.

          But Tony never took civics, so he doesn’t understand these things. He only knows what the DNC has told him to think.

          1. I don’t know why I have to explain to a libertarian that sometimes government programs suck balls.

            1. Probably because it only sucks balls when you don’t get what you want, making your objections worthless.

      2. “We will almost certainly see a rise in equities as factories come back online, production ramps back up, and supply lines are restored. ”

        This. I’d be getting back into major US equities pretty soon. As I’ve written before, China is going back to work very soon. The US might start having it rough, and I think travel/hospitality stocks are going to have a bad time this year, but overall, I think things will trend up.

        Cheap energy (Oil’s around 40 a barrel! In 2020 dollars!) doesn’t hurt.

        1. “This. I’d be getting back into major US equities pretty soon.”

          Though, perhaps not quite this second, as the DJIA in futures trading is currently below 25,000 again. It can just as easily gain 1200 this next session too.

          As far as oil, I was hasty there too. WTI is now below $30 a barrel. Even though natural gas prices haven’t plummeted quite as precipitously as the near 30 percent drop oil prices have fallen, the Russians must be going ape.

    4. Hysterical? Do you know what that word actually means? The media has been hysterical with most high level doctors telling people not to panic. Democrats sure do seem to have their fingers crossed for mass deaths though.

      1. Citation needed re: Democrats wishing for mass death.

        1. They’re voting in record numbers for an avowed socialist.

          Citation given.

  12. The last section ruined what was an actual fair and balanced analysis.

    “Trump’s legacy will probably not depend on how the economy fares during his presidency. I suspect he will be remembered more for his lack of ethics, his juvenile language, his online bullying, his callous immigration policy, his admiration for foreign despots, his personal insecurities, his payment of hush money to a porn star—and, of course, for being impeached.”

    That is what the left and the media want you to remember. But most people dont actually give a fuck about that narrative. People will remember a media that was biased. They will remember a witch hunt. They wont remember his individual tweets or stormy daniels. Nobody talks about Kennedy and the blowjob on the White House pool. From a White House secretary to boot. People dont remember small things. Even W is looked back fondly with little mention of his small mispeaks.

    Article would have been better without squeezing in the anti trump shit at the end.

    1. You saying he’s ethical, doesn’t use juvenile language, doesn’t engage in online bullying, has compassionate immigration policy, hasn’t shown admiration for foreign despots, is free of insecurities, didn’t pay hush money to a porn star, and wasn’t impeached?

      Or are you saying that the things she said were correct, but nobody will remember?

      1. Do you have a serious reading comprehension issue? I said he wouldnt be remembered for the small things the media loves to focus on.

        For Ethics he is as ethical as any past president was. There is literally no delta there. The media, once again, chooses a narrative. One that wont be remembered in minutiae.

        And the language used, like compassionate immigration, is a narrative. 1 million a year come here. Compassion has nothing to fucking do with it. Half the country believes 1 million a year is more than enough for immigration. Having limits is not evil or unethical. For some reason you cant understand this point.

        1. Half the country believes 1 million a year is more than enough for immigration. Having limits is not evil or unethical. For some reason you cant understand this point.

          I understand plenty, I just don’t agree.

          1. No one cares.

          2. You can’t comprehend anything that hasn’t been drilled into you one bumper sticker at a time by Cato, and even then you somehow manage to regurgitate it wrong about half the time. You are unequivocally the most ignorant, poorly educated, and incurably stupid person I have ever encountered posting here – including Tony. Francisco D’Anconia gives you a pretty good run for your money, but he doesn’t come around much anymore.

        2. Also, are you saying his language isn’t juvenile and crass?

          Come on. There has to be one thing the guy has done that you can criticize. If not then you’ve put him on a pedestal. Which is why I make fun of you guys with my comments that are full of exclamation points. It would also explain why you feel that anyone who says anything critical of him hates him and hates everything he does. For you it’s all or nothing. Love the president without question, or vote for Bernie. There is no middle ground for you.

          1. Trump is crude, vulgar, and insensitive. He relies on gut reactions too much. He is a bully and a braggart.

            He has also done more for the common people and for the economy in 100 years. He has been more transparent than any prez ever. He has shown good instincts on foreign entanglements. He keeps enemies, both foreign and domestic, off balance.

            The Ass party wishes they had someone like him.

            1. Sarc will ignore what you said and still insist none of us ever has a criticism for Trump.

      2. And as for admiration, another narrative you’ve blindly followed… who had the Mao christmas ornament again? Who talked about how much easier china had it because they didnt have to deal with the legislative branch? Who praised Cuba and opened them up? Who tried helping iran?

        Seriously, this is why you come across as completely ignorant. Trump has had less admiration than many politicians. Saying one nice thing about a foreign leader isnt admiration, but you blindly repeat the media narrative because it is the most shallow form of analysis you can do. It is lazy, which seems to be your forte.

        1. O’Bummer isn’t president anymore, dood.

        2. Wait a minute wait a minute. You just said below that Trump’s humongous flaws are not important and nobody cares… and you bring up a Christmas ornament?

          Does your brain actually sizzle when Hannity fries it?

          1. Faux News!

    2. Now do Bill Clinton.

      1. He is remembered for being impeached for lying on the stand. Democrats keep trying to switch the narrative to being about a blowjob, dont know why. He is also remembered for signing welfare reform and having a shrill wife.

        1. Yeah nobody ever talks about the sex part. I mean, what a missed opportunity that was for late-night comics, if you think about it.

          If Obama had fucked a porn star you would not call it a non-issue. You idiots didn’t give him an inch on any goddamn thing. Fucking tan suit was a scandal. Now all of a sudden even massive presidential-related flaws are no big thang because Trump is the one failing.

          Why do you people spend your life being such goddamn liars about everything? I mean, how do you fucking do it, day in, day out?

          1. Wow someone woke up on the wrong side of the futon

            1. He lives a pathetic, bitter life. Trying to spread his misery around the internet is all he has.

              1. You show a lot of hostility to a stranger just because he doesn’t suck as much Trump cock as you do.

                Do you think perhaps that speaks to a certain derangement on your end?

                1. Sweetest Tony. Why is it always cock this and suck cock that and Trump cock with you ? Not tryna judge or anything it’s just too much cock talk imo but whatever it’s a free country I guess

                  1. I’m not the one sucking Trump’s cock all day long. I’m just saying what I see.

                    1. “I’m not the one sucking Trump’s cock all day long.”

                      Too busy sucking the hags ass.

                    2. Poor Tony , always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

                    3. Is it weird that you have so much hate for your own sex acts?

            2. Maybe his big black double ended dildo told him it had a headache last night.

          2. “Fucking tan suit was a scandal.”

            Exactly. The “worst” thing Obama ever did was ……. make an unexpected wardrobe choice.

            Meanwhile, Orange Hitler literally puts kids in cages. The contrast is striking.

            #IMissObama
            #DemocratsDontCageKids

            1. “#DemocratsDontCageKids”

              Chuckle

            2. Ah yes the great Republican/conservative/libertarian protests over Obama’s immigration detention policy. I remember it… not.

              1. “…I remember it… not…”

                I sure remember shitbag lefties whining about Trump doing the same as Obo; why weren’t they whining when Obo did so, shitbag lefty?

                1. The old “two wrongs make a right” defense of every terrible thing Trump does, even if it’s far more terrible than what Obama did.

                  1. The old ‘it’s OK when Obo did it, but now it’s Trump!’
                    Stuff it up your ass so your head has some company.

                  2. “Far more terrible”?

                    Smaller cages?

                    Haha

      2. “Now do Bill Clinton.”

        Perjures himself in congress, rents the Lincoln bedroom like it’s a Motel 6, tries to steal WH siverware.
        But he’s soooo dreamy, right shitbag.

        1. Have you heard who’s president now?

          1. Tony do you think Bill Clinton ass fucked Monica? I do. I think he did while she cried.

            1. Trump stole money from his own charity.

              1. Your cite fell off of your lie.

                “Viral social media posts claimed members of the Trump family had been barred from running charities in the state of New York.
                […]
                False”
                https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/

                  1. Nice try, shitbag; that’s not ‘stealing from his charity’. Fail again.

                    1. Is it OK behavior though?

                    2. Your lying you mean?

              2. As did the Clinton’s. And by all accounts far more.

                  1. Perhaps, but we know for a fact that, as a sitting SoS, she sold political access for ‘donations’ to the ‘charity’.

                  2. Tony, you are a million times more guilty of blind partisan ship than any conservative/libertarian here.

                    1. I am equally guilty of partisanship, not nearly as guilty of blind partisanship, and infinitely less guilty of being a fat lying fucktard about being a blind partisan.

                    2. Only because AIDS has wrecked your body. The rest is you all the way.

    3. That stuff is required in order to stay off blacklists.

    4. “All we will remember is Orange Man Bad!”

      #ClownMagazine

      Even if you hate what Trump is doing, you should be able to see that he is fundamentally transforming the US economy and government.

      But sadly, #TDS is terminal at Reason.

  13. The U.S. job market, President Trump tweeted in September, currently has its “all time best unemployment numbers, especially for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians & Women.”

    Trump also more recently tweeted that he was going to visit storm-damaged parts of Tennessee, but who knows if that’s true? How would you even go about checking to see if what Trump tweeted was true? I guess it’s just a mystery so the best you can do is simply report what Trump said without proffering an opinion as to whether or not it’s a true statement.

    1. Trump went to Nashville. What’s your point?

  14. As long as the Fed is doubling the money supply every 11 years, working people are going to be falling behind.

    Sadly, nobody in DC is interested in changing our monetary policy because it’s making everybody in the area filthy rich.

  15. his callous immigration policy

    You mean maintaining the status quo on immigration policy?

    Everyone who is angry at Trump for immigration has lost all their memory when it comes to immigration. And I mean their memory for literally 3.5 years ago. Wtf.

    1. Reason was right there criticizing Obama on immigration, as well as lots of other things. That was when the leftists on the board were accusing Reason of being a conservative rag, because he dared to criticize Dear Leader.

      Now replace Obama with Trump, leftists with conservatives, and conservative with leftist.

      1. Oh, and change it to present tense.

      2. “Reason was right there criticizing Obama on immigration”

        With the same frequency and intensity?

        Right.

      3. Reason was right there criticizing Obama on immigration

        Gillespie wrote one piece in his entire 8 year presidency about his “record number of deportations”, which was nothing but a statistical fabrication by re-classifying what counts as a “deportation”. But you’re a lying piece of shit stupid fucking prick who should kill himself, so that’s not surprising.

    2. Nothing is a better indicator of how dishonest these people are than the “kids in cages” narrative.

      The whole rage started with a picture of a kid in a cage. Then we found out the picture was from 2014. So everyone just forgot about that picture and continued to pretend that it was a new policy.

  16. One thing I find interesting is that wage growth has been limited with the greatest expansion of wage among lowest paid workers. This growth has happened at companies and in locations that have instituted a $15 minimum wage. This suggests that Trump and Republican policies have not done as much for workers wages as they might claim. While Trump’s economy has been good there is nothing to suggest that the President really affected the economy and that another President, less childish and insecure could not have done the same.

    1. “…This growth has happened at companies and in locations that have instituted a $15 minimum wage. This suggests that Trump and Republican policies have not done as much for workers wages as they might claim…”

      First, your TDS ate your cite, and secondly, your ‘conclusion’ is typical lefty BS.
      If the M/W is set close enough to market rates, there is little effect; SF is at full employment, and $15/hour won’t get many warm bodies.
      $15/hour in Bloomfield, IW will get you layoffs and increased mechanization.

      1. We might add that right to work states tend to have lower pay but also lower unemployment, which is to say that these two statistics don’t always move in the same direction–and aren’t independent of each other.

        Wouldn’t it be unreasonable to assume that the unemployment rate would be the same–despite rises in the minimum wage–if it weren’t for things like Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts?

        And if his minimum wage hikes might have been devastating to the unskilled unemployment rate without the benefit of Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts, then why is he criticizing Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts?

        1. Right but you’re an idiot and a liar.

    2. “Trump and Republican policies have not done as much for workers wages as they might claim.”

      If employers were willing to hire more people and at higher wages because of deregulation and tax cuts, then Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts are not only the reason those people are employed and making more money than ever but also give us reason to believe that employers would have been willing to pay them more even without the minimum wage hike.

      Do you imagine that hikes in the minimum wage improves wages for the unemployed? Do you imagine that artificially inflating the wages of the unskilled with minimum wage laws makes more attractive to hire? The unskilled can only compete on price by definition, and by artificially inflating their wages, you’re necessarily making them less attractive to hire and keep employed.

      1. I knew it was just a matter of time until leftist started trying to claim the rise in wages was mainly due to their minimum wage hikes (despite vast evidence this actually harms unskilled workers). I notice the “it’s actually Obama’s economy” is kind of dying out. Maybe people remember Obama blaming everything on Bush his 8 years in office and now aren’t willing to give him credit for anything that has occured during his successor term, especially 3.5 years in.

        1. If they’re whole spiel depends on ignoring the fact that hiring unskilled labor become less desirable as it becomes more expensive (OTBE), that’s definitive proof that progressive economics is built on willful ignorance.

          1. Right but you are a coward and a liar.

            1. I can’t adequately convey how foolish and ridiculous this shtick makes you look

    3. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      “Trump can’t prove a negative, checkmate Republicans! I am very intelligent”

  17. When Bush and Obama were in office, Blockbuster was still in existence. Comparing job growth from that era to now is probably a bit of apples and oranges.

    The America economy would have recovered with or without Trump. Obama likely stalled it with his disruptive overhaul of healthcare and Trump probably sped it up a bit with tax reform and deregulation.

    1. And then strangled it with tariffs. But overall I would take a Trump presidency over that harpy Clinton.

      1. Funny how good the economy looks when “strangled” with tariffs.

        It seems to get off on the rough stuff.

        1. A little light choking can be arousing… But does the economy need a safe word?

    2. “The America economy would have recovered with or without Trump.”

      We should be clear about what it is that makes economies grow and whether what Obama did relative to Trump was conducive or hindering to that process.

      The things the economy did to grow under Obama, it did in spite of his policies–not because of them. Trump did not help his case with the trade war against China, but cutting corporate taxes and, indeed, income taxes, was pro-growth–not against it–and if we’re talking about how Trump’s policies helped and Obama’s hindered the desirability of hiring unskilled labor, just by tearing down the 30 hour “full time” burden for offering new hires healthcare puts Trump head and shoulders above Obama for that reason alone.

      I think they should largely be seen the way the populist reaction to Obama and Trump see them. Obama was all about using the coercive power of government to force the American people to make sacrifices for what he saw as the greater good–and he implemented both ObamaCare and entered into the Paris Climate Treaty for that reason. Trump is all about maximizing policy for the benefit of American workers (even at the expense of American consumers to my disappointment), and Trump’s policies in tearing down Obama’s polices have largely been consistent with that goal–regardless of whether I agree with that goal or his strategy to deal with it.

      1. Right but you’re a coward and a liar.

    3. These people are apoplectic at the prospect of any form of manufacturing being done in America or anyone with anything less than a PhD being employable in the American ”””””service sector””””” while simultaneously demanding completely unrestricted immigration and wonder why jobs growth isn’t as robust as it’s been in the past. This mind you as we ostensibly have 4% unemployment. You wouldn’t really expect double digit job growth if the actual unemployment was what it says on the tin, would you?

  18. Incidentally, if the Democrats can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that the economy has been pretty great for unskilled workers in the wake of Trump’s economic policies being implemented, then the chances of them blaming any bad economic fallout from the coronavirus on Trump are probably close to 100%.

    In fact, chances are they’re try to sell the coronavirus as Trump’s fault, too. If only Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 instead of Trump, none of this coronavirus stuff would have happened in Wuhan or elsewhere! Meanwhile, Trump sat and fiddled while the virus was burning a path through our country–because he doesn’t care!

    This has all happened before. They say history doesn’t repeat itself, it just rhymes, but watch what the Democrats say when they try to blame the coronavirus on Trump over the coming weeks and compare it to what they said about Ronald Reagan and the AIDS virus. Why, if it hadn’t been for Ronald Reagan, there might not have been any AIDS epidemic at all!

    “Ronald Reagan has a lot to account for: the early AIDS epidemic unleashed more stigmatization of gay men than any other event in the history of gay life in America, and Ronald Reagan presided as president over the first seven years of that slaughter.”

    “Ronald Reagan Presided Over 89,343 Deaths to AIDS and Did Nothing”

    https://lithub.com/ronald-reagan-presided-over-89343-deaths-to-aids-and-did-nothing/

    Back when Reagan was in office, we didn’t have a word for people who thought that everything that happened (or didn’t happen) while Ronald Reagan was in office was his fault. Nowadays, with Trump in office, of course, we call it Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    1. Nobody’s blaming Reagan for AIDS or Trump for the virus. Only their extremely inept responses to the crises.

      1. Like the proactive travel ban that was ridiculed?

        1. What’s the difference between blaming Trump for the virus and blaming Trump for his inept response to the virus?

          It isn’t even a distinction without a difference because it isn’t even a distinction. They’re the same thing.

          He doesn’t care about reality so long as whatever happens is interpreted in a way that is anti-Trump. This is what it means to be a progressive to a lot of progressives.

          1. It’s like it doesn’t even occur to you that the administration can fail at responding adequately to something like this.

            Pretend he has a (D) after his name and is black.

            1. Pretend you have a brain; try again.

              1. Now that’s a fun little paradox, isn’t it?

                1. Pretend you have a brain; try again.

            2. “It’s like it doesn’t even occur to you that the administration can fail at responding adequately to something like this.”

              It’s like you’re already blaming Trump for mistakes that are as yet unidentified.

              What mistake has Trump made?

              What would Hillary Clinton have done differently?

              What is Joe Biden saying Trump should have done differently–anything?

              What is Bernie Sanders saying Trump should have done differently and he will do differently if we elect him president–do you know?

              . . . or are you just making shit up?

              “Nobody’s blaming Reagan for AIDS or Trump for the virus. Only their extremely inept responses to the crises.”

              —-Tony

              You’re saying we should blame Trump for his inept response, but you won’t say which response or why?

              1. Trump is on TV nearly every day hamfistedly and unsuccessfully trying to calm markets by lying about the facts on the ground. He contradicts scientists and physicians who are present at the same press conferences he’s at. He’s blaming Obama when possible. He’s behaving exactly like you’d expect him to behave if he sees a political problem for himself and is in panic princess mode. His supporters, if you’ve been on the internet, actually think the pandemic is a hoax, because that’s the word he used and they’re dumb.

                On top of that, the Trump government has been practically sleepwalking its actual physical response.

                I didn’t force Trump to be an idiot or you to vote for him. You should comfort yourself that he hasn’t had to deal with an actual international crisis until now. That his reaction is predictably unhinged and counterproductive is also not my fault.

                1. Okay, so you’re not talking about anything he should have done differently in terms of his constitutional powers as President of the United States. You just don’t like the way he says things at press conferences?

                  And you like Hilary’s, Biden’s, and Sanders’ styles better?

                  Not an impressive example of Trump’s “inept response to the crisis”–as you said.

                  Don’t feel too bad, Biden and Sanders can’t think of anything to criticize either. As soon as Trump does anything from here on out, however, they’ll be sure to criticize it–and then you’ll know what to say, too.

                2. P.S. I did my patriotic duty and didn’t vote in 2016.

                3. Depends on the scientist. I’ve read quite a few who are stating that the fear is not warranted. And case numbers will go up as more people are tested. Most of them will have had only minor illnesses or were completely asymptomatic. You can’t point to a single policy so you make vague charges of lying about the actual facts on the ground. Could you enlighten us as to what those facts are? How would you like the President to act? What specific policies do you propose? And quieting the markets is a valid concern. Or are you cheering for an economic downturn brought on be fear?

                  1. I actually think that many leftist are secretly hoping for a economic collapse to further their agenda. Rather they even admit it to themselves.

                    1. The left has nominated two lame old farts, one of whom promises to kill the US economy if elected, the other promises to try to remain conscious.
                      The left offers nothing to the US public other than to regain the office; they are bereft of value other than BEAT TRUMP!, as if Trump were the sole cause of our prosperity. But he’s UNCOUTH!
                      What a campaign promise: Get couth and poor by electing us!

                  2. “Depends on the scientist. I’ve read quite a few who are stating that the fear is not warranted. And case numbers will go up as more people are tested. Most of them will have had only minor illnesses or were completely asymptomatic.”

                    And the death rate (percentage) will thereby properly plummet.
                    How often has the left declared the end of the world if we do not allow them to take command?
                    Capitalism was declared dead in 1918, only to have the world-wide collapse of commies in 1989.
                    We are currectly told by a ‘tarded Scandinavian teen that we’re already headed for death in 12 years unless she and her brain-dead compatriots are given control of the world NOW! As we were told 20+ years ago.
                    And the left now has a WORLD-WIDE PANDEMIC!!! as a cause to direct every bit of your daily life.
                    In the US (see Tony, above), this is largely driven by TDS, and I’ll make this prediction:
                    By July of this year, the entire episode will be remembered for the un-warrranted panic and the economic distortion.
                    I’m buying.

                    1. Might be a bit premature to buy. The market reflects the panic, not the epidemiology. The panic won’t subside until the number of cases has dramatically and unequivocally declined.

                4. “…He contradicts scientists and physicians who are present at the same press conferences he’s at…”

                  When I first ended up here, there was a lefty POS commenter with the handle MNG; he was (and might well still be) a climate catastrophist. That was some time prior to the gov’t-lead market distortion leading to the 2008 recession, so by now (according to MNG) we should all be dead.
                  At that time, as a newbie, I pointed out the fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’; MNG promised to “DESTROY” me as a result.
                  Tony, stuff your ‘appeal to authority’ up your ass so your head has some company.

                  1. Scientists are authorities it’s OK to appeal to, you monumentally dumb fuck.

            3. So far he is responding adequately to corona virus. Far better than Obama to previous pandemics.

              1. You mean the ones that didn’t spread nationwide in America?

                1. No he means the ones that never hit America, allowing a guy who fucked up literally everything to avoid any tough decisions.

  19. “Defenders, however, made a mistake by framing the tax cut as a major relief for the middle class.

    The middle class wasn’t and still isn’t shouldering very much of the income-tax burden: Most income taxes are paid by higher-income earners. In 2013, the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 10 percent of the population was roughly 70 percent, while the share of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 90 percent of income earners was about 30 percent, according to research from the Tax Foundation based on IRS data….”

    This is not the perspective of the taxpayer, and I would say it was written disingenuously. The 2017 tax cuts did reduce the annual tax burden of millions of middle-class taxpayers, easily into four digits each. While the effect on the overall tax rolls may be small, to each taxpayer it was significant.

    1. It was “crumbs”, remember?

  20. The top 1 percent pay more taxes because they make all the money
    Period
    AS wealth and income concentrate higher and higher, yes, as a dollar amount the pay more

    If I make a million dollars and the other 99 make a dollar each, how would you expect the distribution to look?

    1. arpiniant1
      March.8.2020 at 6:59 pm
      “The top 1 percent pay more taxes because they make all the money
      Period
      AS wealth and income concentrate higher and higher, yes, as a dollar amount the pay more
      If I make a million dollars and the other 99 make a dollar each, how would you expect the distribution to look?”

      Was there supposed to be a point buried in that bullshit, or just more of your idiotic lefty twaddle?

    2. So you support redistributive taxation?

    3. If you asked these people what makes economies grow, I doubt they could come up with anything reasonable.

      1. I’m pretty sure the concept of economic growth is not really of interest to them.
        Equally poor will do just fine.

        1. It’s really about ignorance. I’d say it’s worse than talking to six-day creationists about evolution, but 1) I’m not here to offend any creationists and 2) I know six-day creationists who clearly are NOT dumber than these people when they’re talking about income redistribution.

          When I say that what these wealth redistribution people believe is dumber than creationism, it isn’t necessarily a knock on creationism. The fact is if creationists understand that a creator God isn’t absolutely necessary for survival of the fittest and genetic drift to work their magic (after God created life), then they’re far ahead of any Democrats who believe in central planning and wealth redistribution–despite claiming to understand the process of evolution. We’re talking about the same process in both cases!

          P.S. I’d rather live in a society dominated by fundamentalist Christians who believe in capitalism and the Protestant work ethic than fashionable buffoons who don’t know the first thing about what makes economies grow–and I don’t even have to think about it. For goodness’ sake, these people talk about stealing the wealth of people who owe them nothing like there aren’t any ethical questions.

          They’re probably either multi-generational government employees/parasites, who can’t tell the difference between the blood they suck out of our backs and what belongs to them, or they must be something like casual psychopaths. Is there another ethical system in the world where wanting what other people have justified taking it from them under the threat of violence and against their will?

          1. “…We’re talking about the same process in both cases!…”

            I think it was Shermer in “The Mind of the Market” who drew the connection between Darwin and Smith, and, no, contra lefties, it was not as regards ‘survival of the fittest’; it was in regard to ‘self-organizing’ systems.
            The left (as exemplified by Tony) denies the possibility of such for a market, but then claims evolution occurs by exactly that mechanism.
            I’m an atheist; I see no reason either should be denied. Tony claims to be an atheist, but still clings to the belief, absent evidence, that the market MUST be ‘designed’.
            Bullshit. Tony believes in the religion of the government.

  21. Tonys been gone for so long I’d forgotten what a queer chap he is. Sarc, however, hangs around and ingrains in one’s memory the classic definition of a shitstain.

    1. I’ve been in chemo. Now don’t you feel bad.

      Just kidding. Cancer is for people who lack an entrepreneurial spirit.

      1. “I’ve been in chemo. Now don’t you feel bad.”

        No, I had hopes you died. The world would be a better place.

        1. Ditto. And I would consider it karmic justice.

          1. You want me to die young because I have political differences from you.

            Yes, this seems like a totally legit and sustainable community.

            1. You aren’t young guy, and we know because you’ve admitted it.

              So chalk up another ham fisted lie you tried and could not pass off.

            2. I can’t let such a misperception go by because this is my reputation. I am a certified millennial. On the elder millennial range, sure.

      2. AIDS is perfectly fine for faggots though.

  22. Oh, and when you look at taxes for the bottom segments don’t forget payroll taxes[not included in right wing propaganda] or local,sales or property taxes
    Sure the wealthy pay those too, but as a significantly lower percentage of their income

    1. Whine, whine, whine…
      Maybe one day you’ll make enough to pay taxes, you pathetic piece of shit.

    2. “Sure the wealthy pay those too, but as a significantly lower percentage of their income”

      Why is that important?

      The top 1% pay 37% of the income taxes–37 times their proportion of the population.

      Top 25%, people who make more than $80,921 pay 86% of all taxes received by the IRS–more than three times their proportion of the population.

      https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

      And they get less back for their tax money than people who receive Medicaid, rent subsidies, and SNAP benefits, that’s for sure.

      You understand we’re libertarian capitalists, here, right? . . . and that means wealth redistribution by way of politicians–like from each according to his ability to each according to his need–is frowned on? When I think of what all that extra discretionary income, investment, and savings could do for the working poor and the marginally unemployed in this country, it makes me want to cry.

      If you can’t earn enough to take care of yourself, please don’t have children, and if you can’t earn enough to care for yourself, ask yourself why. I suspect the fact that the government is taxing the productive work, profits, and investment proceeds of other people is a big part of it–and that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt. If the cause is laziness, shame on you. Envy of people wealthier than you isn’t a good excuse to steal from other people whether it’s for your own benefit or anyone else’s.

    3. Local, sales, and property taxes are state and local issues. If you feel that your property taxes, maybe you shouldn’t have voted for your liberal governor.

      As for the payroll tax, I thought pretty much everyone was in agreement that even the lower classes need to pay SOMETHING, if only to maintain the fiction that they’re going into investment programs.

  23. They forgot to add 2 important and interrelated factors: interest rates and cost of living. Just when the fed (the president’s puppet) started to raise interest rates from anemic to still damn low, they reversed course. Now there’s just been a large corona virus panic interest rate cut also. This screwed savers and those on fixed incomes and investors in conservative financial products. Predictably this era of super low interest rates has caused massive inflation not in the bullshit CPI but in overall cost of living and especially housing. The actual cost of living increases have outstripped any income increases by quite a bit. Trump came into office with insanely low interest rates so he doesn’t deserve the full blame. But, his bullying of the fed and changing course to lowering interest rates again after just a few minor increases show’s he’s all about artificially low interest rates as opposed to a normal, balanced functional economy. He could care less about the negative consequences of super low interest rates whether short term or long term.

  24. While the 2017 tax cuts didn’t deliver the results promised by Trump and his magical-thinking supporters, the administration has delivered some economic expansion, some job creation, and some investment growth.

    My “magical thinking” was that tax cuts would reduce my taxes. They did. That’s really all I care about when it comes to tax cuts.

    1. Thinking letting people keep more of their own money is a good thing and good for the economy now “magical thinking”.

  25. Don’t worry! Open your Gold Savings Account and secure your future.

  26. the administration has delivered some economic expansion

    Saying this ought to be anathema on a libertarian site.

  27. It is radicules that people have to pay much for medication, which can be available at a very low price. In other countries, i.e Canada, The drug price is 80% cheaper than US local pharmacies. It can be an alternative but not a permanent solution. Recently I have bought my products from https://www.offshorecheapmeds.com and found that these online pharmacies are far cheaper than local pharmacies in the US. and they are safer too.

  28. More importantly some tax and regulation cuts are a move towards more freedom and less government. A step in the right direction. Judicial appointments are also a step in the right direction.
    Libertarian Party is not close to impacting a Presidential election, should focus on house and senate where Libertarian or Libertarian leaning candidates can win. Trump for his bluster and some obviously not Libertarian positions is still a net win for us.

  29. Uptil I noticed the receipt which had said 8217 Buck , I even have faith …That…My brothers buddy woz like truley taking home money part time from their laptop. . There neighbor has accomplished this for less than seventeen months and currently repayed the morgage on there mini mansion and acquired themselves a Subaru Impreza . test out here… More Read Here

  30. Libertarians for higher taxes!

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Remember when you crypto Marxist pieces of shit used to at least use the tagline “low tax liberals”?

    1. Where do you see anything in the article that advocated higher taxes?

  31. Does anyone else remember when Veronique actually put up articles that showed an understanding of economics?

    How can a person so willingly destroy their credibility by such monumentally stupid reporting over and over again to attempt to curry favor with those who thought that 500 million divided by 1 million equaled 330 trillion?

    What are you pursuing? What gain can come from people who can’t count?

    1. I long laughed at the TDS thingey. But over and over again it proves to be demonstrably true. And it’s not new, but I thought “But Booosh” had mercifully run it’s course. Never under estimate the lust for cocktail party inclusion.

  32. Excellent summary.

  33. “Trump’s legacy will probably not depend on how the economy fares during his presidency. I suspect he will be remembered more for his lack of ethics, his juvenile language…”

    Yeah, we get it, you’re a Trump hater. And so you’d rather focus on the things (distractions) that matter least in people’s lives. This paragraph of yours sounds like wishful thinking. Well, the rest of us sensible people will make sure he’ll be remembered for the things that truly matter.

  34. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…. Read more  

  35. Yeah, we get it, you’re a Trump hater. And so you’d rather focus on the things (distractions) that matter least in people’s lives. This paragraph of yours sounds like wishful thinking. Well, the rest of us sensible people will make sure he’ll be remembered for the things that truly matter.

    https://www.dimofinf.net/

  36. laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u
    https://www.dimofinf.net/تصميم-مواقع-إلكترونية

  37. America has always had a strong economy, so you can relax with some fine girls on
    Sex Zuid-Holland and not worry.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.