Guest Contribution: “Trump’s Fiscal Brainstorm: Cut Taxes for the Rich”

Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. This is an extended version of a column that appeared at Project Syndicate.

Among the many ways in which this year’s US presidential election campaign differs radically from past patterns is the departure of Republican nominee Donald Trump from many of the policy positions traditionally taken by his party. For example on support for trade, military allies, or marriage. But when he released some positions on tax policy position recently, the differences with Hillary Clinton’s proposals fell very much along usual party lines. It’s the kind of tax cuts that have long been favored by Republican presidential candidates and congressmen: tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich, and that are not accompanied with any plans to pay for them.

Of course there are reasons for hesitating to judge presidential candidates by their platforms. Plans announced in the campaign are often a poor guide to what the president will actually do once in office. Candidate George W. Bush, for example, promised in 2000 to renounce nation-building adventures abroad, to respect fiscal responsibility, and to treat greenhouses gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Needless to say, his administration rocketed off 180 degrees in the opposite direction on these issues.

Mr. Trump, in particular, changes his positions with head-spinning frequency, denying that he said things that he is on record as having said a short time before. A common tactic is to accuse the media of making up the earlier statements, even when the earlier statements are on tape. Another tactic is to say that he was only joking.

Are we supposed to take seriously, for example, his statements during the primary debates that American workers’ wages are too high? Or that he could and would happily contemplate negotiating the terms of the national debt with creditors, otherwise known as defaulting? Are we supposed to overlook such reckless statements, and ascribe them to an earlier period when he was young and irresponsible?

Compare the zig-zags that Trump has pulled off with the minor past shifts that have been sufficient in the past to get other politicians tarred with “flip-flopping”. Remember, for example, the reaction when John Kerry in 2004 said “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” (The earlier Democratic measure that he supported would have paid for the $87 billion in Iraq war funding by reducing Bush’s tax cuts while the version that he voted against instead irresponsibly added the cost to the national debt.)

In any case, we policy wonks are obliged to try to evaluate the policy plans that the candidates offer. The alternative is to leave the national discussion focused entirely on the current week’s poll results, reporting whether the candidates are rising and falling among voters classified by various combinations of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Some positions that a candidate may truly hold don’t deserve the attention they receive because in practice he or she stands little or no chance of being able to bring them about if elected. An obvious case is when their proposals are blocked by the other party if it has a majority in congress. Another case is international constraints. Although there is a lot of attention to trade agreements this year, promises by presidential candidates to negotiate a new improved trade agreement are seldom if ever implementable once they get to office. (The truth is, in international negotiations such as TPP, the US has already gotten about the best deal it can get, one that is much better than most people realize.)

The difference between the two parties lies not in some fantasized ability to reverse the rise in inequality by turning the clock back 50 years on trade, or even on somehow reversing the long-term shift from manufacturing to services. Rather the difference lies in some very practical live policy issues, particularly some that would reverse the trend that leaves many workers behind. Examples include universal health care (extending the ACA, i.e., Obamacare, rather than abolishing it), infrastructure spending ($275 billion cumulative, in Secretary Clinton’s campaign proposal), compensation for those who lose jobs due to trade or other forces beyond their control, and a more progressive tax structure.

Trump made his most serious attempt at a fiscal plan on August 8. The tax proposal has four salient features, fairly described as tax cuts for the rich. There is no indication how the tax cuts will be paid for and every indication that they will sharply expand the budget deficit, as happened when Reagan and Bush enacted record budget-busting policies. All of this is very much in line with Republican proposals over the last four decades, all the while attacking Democrats for running deficits.

  • Trump proposes to abolish the estate tax entirely. Bush and congressional Republicans tried hard to do this, and got close, but didn’t quite make it. Trump, like other Republicans in the past, tries to hide the fact that only the very rich would benefit because the current estate exemptions are so high: $10.9 million for the estate of an married couple (and half that for an individual). In the most recent year available, only 4,700 estates in the entire country, out of 2.6 million deaths, required the reporting of some estate tax liability. Trump repeated the old fairy tale of farms or small businesses that have to be sold by heirs to pay the estate tax; but Republicans after all these years are still unable to come up with specific instances of this actually happening.

  • He proposes to cut corporate income taxes very sharply, to 15%. It is true that the US corporate income tax rate is among the highest in the world, at 35%, and that this probably contributes to companies keeping profits overseas, rather than repatriating them to the US. But as most tax policy experts will tell you, a reduction in the overall rate should be accompanied by base-broadening. In particular, we should abolish corporate tax deductions such as those designed to encourage corporate debt and oil drilling. We could thereby reduce harmful distortions in the economy while making up revenue.

  • Trump’s proposals to cut personal income tax rates have now changed.

    • Before the primaries, his fiscal proposals included cutting the top marginal income tax rate from 39.6 %, the current level, to 25%. Independent analysts pointed out that his tax policies would lose about $10 trillion in revenue over the first decade, a mind-bogglingly big number. They would rapidly driving to record levels the national debt as a share of GDP, which has been coming down over the last five years. His most recent proposal is to cut the marginal tax rate for high earners by about half as much, to 33%.
    • A new proposal, apparently added at the urging of daughter Ivanka Trump: Allow tax deductions for the entirety of average child care costs. Any such deductions benefit only those in high enough tax brackets to itemize deductions (like mortgage interest), which is mostly those who earn more than $75,000. That is well above US median household income of $54,462 in 2015.

The Democrats would love to be able to accuse Trump of designing his tax cuts so as directly to benefit him, his family, and people like them. It is harder to make this accusation because the candidate still refuses to release his own income tax records (as all previous candidates have done since Nixon). There is no shortage of guesses as to what it is that Trump must be trying to hide. One good guess is that in some years he has paid no taxes at all, by taking advantage of loopholes already available to big real estate developers. If so, his annual tax bill can’t be cut further. But he would still gain from the elimination of the estate tax.

Basic arithmetic says “government outlays minus tax receipts equals the budget deficit.” Republican presidential candidates have seemingly had trouble understanding this equation since 1980. They propose large specific tax cuts without specific spending cuts, and yet claim they are going to reduce the deficit. The outcome was the record increases in budget deficits during the terms of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Trump’s tax cut proposals follow in this tradition of fiscal irresponsibility. The budget plans are still too vague — particularly with respect to discretionary government spending, social security and Medicare – to allow an informed estimate of their impact on the federal deficit and national debt. But the candidate may be subjected to pressure to become more specific as the date of the election draws near.

Trump may look to his predecessors’ strategies for guidance. It is worth recalling the four magic tricks that politicians calling themselves fiscal conservatives have been using for 35 years, evasions to facilitate making fiscal promises with a straight face. These tricks are often deployed in sequence, one succeeding another as they fail to work.

  1. The “Magic Asterisk.” The candidate promises to balance the budget at the same time as cutting taxes by spending cuts that are not specified (“future savings to be identified”), but supposedly will be in the future.

  2. Rosy Scenario.” One can forecast an increase in tax receipts if one forecasts an increase in the national rate of growth of income. One PhD economist has finally signed on as an adviser to the Trump campaign (though he has apparently yet to talk to the candidate); he has suggested that under a Trump presidency the American GDP growth rate will magically double. This is the same tactic adopted by Jeb Bush during the primaries, and many other politicians before (of both parties).

  3. The Laffer hypothesis. But why should growth double? Reagan, Bush, McCain, and others have signed on to the proposition that their proposed cuts in tax rates will spur economic activity so much that total tax revenue (the tax rate times the economic base) will go up rather than down. Although this “Laffer proposition” has been disproved many times, and the economic advisers to those three candidates clearly disavowed it, the temptation to square the budgetary circle by making this claim is too strong to resist. Watch for Trump to come out with it.

  4. The “Starve the Beast” hypothesis. Finally, after the other justifications for big tax cuts turned out wrong, Presidents Reagan and Bush fell back on the theory that, even though tax revenue had in fact fallen rather than rising, this was a good thing after all: it would politically force congress to approve spending cuts. But these are cuts that the president himself never gets around to proposing.

Perhaps it is inevitable that candidates at the platform-making stage wish away such real-world constraints as congressional politics or international realities, leaving voters disappointed by failed “promises” after taking office. But politicians shouldn’t be able to wish away the constraints of arithmetic — not when the promises reflect the same failed sleight of hand that has been tried and exposed so many times before.

This post written by Jeffrey Frankel.

13 thoughts on “Guest Contribution: “Trump’s Fiscal Brainstorm: Cut Taxes for the Rich”

  1. Ed Hollison

    I have noticed, and very much appreciate, that an economist of Frankel’s stature is wading into some of these important policy discussions. I’m sure I’m not alone.

  2. Bruce Hall

    I think Dr. Frankel is right on most counts. The only point I would question more thoroughly is this:
    He proposes to cut corporate income taxes very sharply, to 15%. It is true that the US corporate income tax rate is among the highest in the world, at 35%, and that this probably contributes to companies keeping profits overseas, rather than repatriating them to the US. But as most tax policy experts will tell you, a reduction in the overall rate should be accompanied by base-broadening. In particular, we should abolish corporate tax deductions such as those designed to encourage corporate debt and oil drilling. We could thereby reduce harmful distortions in the economy while making up revenue.

    The “oil drilling” deductions are not much different in effect than the subsidies given to wind and solar power. The difference is that hydraulic fracturing has been a massive benefit to the U.S. economy and especially beneficial to those below the median income level as their heating and gasoline costs have plummeted (except for California which represents a special case). I am guessing that this “throw in” example is for the benefit of the climate crowd rather than a real tax issue… unless the issue is it is easier to hide fuel taxes when gasoline prices are high and Dr. Frankel would like to see higher fuel taxes or that he has an especially soft spot in his heart for Venezuela and Russia.

  3. Anonymous

    “…tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich, and that are not accompanied with any plans to pay for them.”

    I wonder how many votes Democrats have won with this academically lazy argument. Above, DeDude is correct when he says that Republican tax cuts favor the rich. But if you do your homework you’ll see that most poor people do not pay much (or any in a lot of cases) in federal taxes.

    So how can you propose a tax cut for the poor? If you could, than I guarantee you almost all Republicans would vote for it, because they love low taxes,it has nothing to do with being rich or poor! It has to do with letting people keep the money that they earn…

    1. DeDude

      Social security and gas taxes are paid by anybody with a car and a job. However, you rarely see a GOP tax plan to reduce those taxes. Sales taxes are the same although those play out on the state rather than federal level.

  4. Rick Stryker

    Here we go again: more partisanship masquerading as objective policy wonkery and analysis, a specialty on this side of econbrowser. Of course Trump is right to propose the tax cuts without being specific about spending cuts. And he’s right not to release his tax returns. It must be frustrating to the Democrats that Trump isn’t foolish enough to hand them a club. I imagine they long for the good old days of Romney and Ryan.

    Let’s get serious about the politics of this. In a nutshell, Democrats want to increase government spending, increase government’s role in the economy, and therefore raise taxes a lot. That’s their goal. Because a large percentage of taxes are paid by a small percentage of upper income tax payers, Democrats have a particularly convenient pre-election pitch. They can promise a lot of popular new spending which they pay for by raising taxes even more on the small percentage of people who already pay a large percentage of the tax burden, while pledging to leave alone everyone else. Thus, they don’t get into political trouble and can posture as being fiscally responsible. Of course, once they get into office, all bets are off, and they reveal their real agenda which is to raise taxes on everybody, increase regulations and government control, and attempt to increase spending even more than what is covered by the tax increases.

    The fact that a large percentage of the taxes is already paid by a small percentage of upper income taxpayers gives them a further marketing advantage. A meaningful tax cut, one that is designed to affect incentives by reducing marginal tax rates, as a matter of arithmetic must reduce the tax burden of upper income tax payers, since they are paying most of the taxes in the first place. Thus, any tax cut proposal can be spun as “benefiting the rich.”

    On the other hand, the goal of Republicans is to reduce government spending and government influence and control over the economy. That’s a much harder task, again, given the nature of the political situation. There is someone who always benefits from any particular spending item, and those people will fight the cut even if they are for cutting spending in general. Democrats exploit that fact. As soon as Republicans get specific about what they will cut, Democrats will mobilize a coalition of those affected by the spending cuts to make sure those proposing the cuts never take office.

    Thus, Republicans typically follow the strategy of cutting revenues first and then arguing with the Democrats later about cutting spending. In those negotiations, Democrats often try to persuade Republicans into making public proposed cuts first, while pretending to negotiate in good faith. If Republicans are dumb enough to fall for that, they deserve the pounding that surely comes from the Democrats. But if Republicans refuse to reveal the spending cuts first, they are then accused of being insincere about spending cuts, the same accusation that Prof Frankel repeats dutifully above, saying “but these are cuts that the president himself never gets around to proposing.” It’s a lose-lose situation.

    Republicans know that cutting taxes first is the best way to control spending given the political tactics of the Democrats, even if there is a long lag time between policies. Reagan cut taxes and then argued with the Democrats about cutting spending, to no avail. Thus, the deficit went up. But eventually, a high deficit becomes a political issue and there will be pressure on both sides to reduce spending. That opportunity came in the 1990s. The end of the cold war allowed a reduction in military spending, which began under Bush and continued under Clinton. The cuts in military spending were not diverted to increased domestic spending. Nor where the reductions in interest payments on the debt used to increase domestic spending. And Clinton’s overreach in the first part of his term led to a Republican Congress, which restrained the growth rate of domestic spending. In essence, Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s were paid for later by cuts in spending in the 1990s.

    Bush also cut taxes first. By 2011, the political pressure from the rising debt enabled a Republican Congress to force the recalcitrant Democrats to sign on to the Budget Control Act of 2011. In this mechanism, the two parties have to agree on what the spending cuts are. There is no requirement for the Republicans to go first with their spending cut ideas, only to be attacked by Democrats. And if the two parties don’t agree, then automatic across the board spending cuts take place, so that no one can blame anyone else. That’s how you cut spending.

    Democrats always try to embarrass Republicans into revealing spending cut ideas first, as Prof Frankel attempts to do in this article. It’s a standard partisan technique. Romney and Ryan foolishly fell for it and openly discussed what everyone knows–domestic spending on social security, medicare, and medicaid are unsustainable in the long run. Their “responsibility” was rewarded with ads from the Democrats showing a Ryan lookalike pushing an elderly woman off a cliff. Trump won’t make the same mistake.

    The other ploy that Romney fell for was the insistence by Democrats that he release his tax returns. The situation is always presented by Democrats as one of fair disclosure to the public. But Trump and other Republicans know that there is nothing fair about this, as Romney found out. There is a double standard. Most of the media is heavily for Clinton and they will use the fact tax law is complex and not well understood by the public to take perfectly benign items and insinuate sinister skulduggery. That happened to Romney with his IRA. Trump could spend valuable weeks being the story and trying to bat down nonsense charges rather than making the Obama Administration’s failed polices and Hillary’s promise to continue them the story. That chance to make Trump the story, no matter how unfair, is the real reason they want to see his tax returns.

    Contrast Democrats’ interest in Trump’s tax returns today with their lack of interest when the Clintons were first running for President. The Clintons refused to give out their tax returns beyond a certain date and of course they got away with that because of the double standard that Trump and other Republicans well understand. We found out why, 2 years into the Clinton presidency. It turned out the Hillary Clinton was the best investor in the history of the world, turning $1000 into $100K in just a year in the cattle futures market. Of course, that disclosure was much too late to affect the race and Democrats all fell into line, defending the indefensible as they continue to do to this day.

    Of course, Trump shouldn’t release his tax returns. Nor should he propose a specific spending cut plan. Nice try, Professor Frankel, but Trump is not dumb enough to take the bait.

    1. anon2345

      On the other hand, the goal of Republicans is to reduce government spending and government influence and control over the economy.

      I agree with this goal. I like to hear talk of cutting spending, reducing spending, cutting waste. I prefer to see action! I would vote for the Republicans if they actually did what they said they would.


      Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress for the last two years.

      Have we seen any plan to reduce the 20 trillion in debt: NO.
      Have we seen any plan to simplify the tax code: NO
      Have we seen any plan to elimate loop holes like the carried interest hedge fund loophole?: NO NO NO NO
      Have we seen any plan to reduce waste (military, agriculture subsidies): NO
      Have we even seen a plan to eliminate predatory companies like MYLAN? (It’s easy: Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Allow Americans to buy from oversea pharmacies.) Republicans could do this, but they refuse to.

      I would vote for Republicans if they were not all hat and no cattle. As far as I can see they are for their rich elite just like the Democrats. And worse because they LIE about it.

      Any defense of the Republicans as you have attempted to mount is more about tribal allegiances than real policy. Republicans have had the chance to live up to their rhetoric and have failed over and over again.

      And there is no way Trump will do anything more than enrich himself.

      Let’s see those tax returns. Your arguments are no defense. They will only give Clinton a hammer if there is something bad in them. What if they show excessive dependence on Russian financing for his businesses? Or what if they show him taking advantage of every dubious loop hole available to the rich. What an American! HEH!

      I cannot vote for Trump. I don’t want to vote for Clinton.

      But you should wake up and acknowledge that your defense of the Republicans and Trump is based on fantasy and tribal allegiance.

      Think for yourself, man.

      1. anon2345

        Let me reiterate:

        I cannot vote for Trump. I don’t want to vote for Clinton. But

        She’s more honest!

      2. Rick Stryker


        It never happens? You must have been on vacation while Menzie was losing it in 2011 over the debt ceiling crisis of 2011 and the subsequent Budget Control Act of 2011. Here is what you missed.

        During the Great Recession, federal outlays as a percent of GDP climbed from 20% to almost 25% by the end of 2009. That was not the Administration’s doing. However, rather than letting that percentage fall back to historically more normal ratios, the Obama Administration put out a budget that would have maintained the ratio of outlays to GDP at about 24% by 2020. Meanwhile, the Republicans took control of the House in 2010 and resisted this increase in spending. The House passed a budget resolution that would have returned the ratio to 20% by 2020. The Administration and House Republicans were at an impasse, which led to the debt ceiling crisis, in which Republicans refused to authorize an increase in the debt ceiling unless it was combined with spending cuts. Ultimately, the Budget Control Act of 2011 provided the compromise. It created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction and established the budget sequestration mechanism, which provides for automatic spending cuts in case Democrats and Republicans can’t agree using the Joint Select Committee. The upshot was that the ratio of outlays to GDP was reduced from the Administration’s desire for 24% to 22% by 2020. Of course, Republicans would have preferred to get to 20%. However, we do live in a Democracy and that was the best that could have been accomplished at the time, given that the Democrats controlled the Senate and White House.

        Thus, your assertion that Republicans never do it is contradicted by recent history. If you don’t believe it, I suggest you ask Menzie’s cardiologist what happened in 2011.

      3. Rick Stryker


        One thing many Republicans like about Trump is that he won’t accept the double standard that you and other Democrats expect Republicans to live by. You and Jeff Frankel want to see what might be in Trump’s tax returns. But you avert your eyes from the misconduct that has already been established in the candidate you support. Your candidate is indictable under both a misdemeanor and felony statute for mishandling classified information. But you want to talk about what might be in Trump’s tax returns.

        The double standard is breathtaking. The FBI Director, anticipating one likely defense at trial, the need for scienter or “intent” has he calls it, decides that there is no need to let a judge and jury decide, since he knows through some mysterious process that “intent” defense will automatically succeed. He also asserts amazingly that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, without surveying any prosecutors. As we know from Trey Gowdy now, the FBI also didn’t investigate intent. Meanwhile, the Democrats at Justice do not see any need to exercise any independent judgment, since after all, the FBI’s legal view is always right. The Democrats and their media allies immediately close the case. Time to turn to a real issue–Trump’s tax returns!

        Trump understands this process is rigged and refuses to play along.

        1. anon2345

          I am not a Democrat.

          “But you avert your eyes from the misconduct that has already been established in the candidate you support. Your candidate is indictable under both a misdemeanor and felony statute for mishandling classified information. ”

          It would have been just fine with me if Hillary Clinton had been indicted.

          But she wasn’t.

          You seem to think that you have more legal knowledge than the FBI. But you don’t. Or, if you do, go prove it in a court of law rather than just dribbling it out in some blog post. Go. Go. Go. Now. Please.

          If it’s not in a court of law, then it doesn’t count no matter how much you think it should.

          I am sorry that your prejudice is ignored by the lawful tribunals of this nation.

          I cry for you.

          1. Rick Stryker


            There will be no test in a court of law, since for some reason the FBI took that off the table. Interesting that you are not the slightest bit curious about that, especially since you claim you are not a Democrat.

            I know enough about the legal issues to know that the FBI view was not well supported and would be happy to debate them with any lawyer. Even without considering the legal issues, why make the extreme statement, as the Director of the FBI did, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case? Did he do a survey of prosecutors before he made such a statement? A statement like that can only help the Democratic candidate.

            You are trying to pretend that you are even-handed, even saying that you’d be fine if your candidate had been indicted. But then you say you plan to vote for her anyway, a candidate you would have been fine seeing indicted. Very curious indeed.

            Almost makes me think you aren’t being totally honest here.

  5. Alex

    I slammed my empty Jameson’s glass and screamed.
    “All politicians are crooks.”
    A giant pounded the mahogany bar.
    “Screw you.”
    I said meekly, “You a politician?”
    “No, a crook.”

    Oh. My.

    I don’t disagree with anything Jeff said, per se.

    Obviously, he didn’t read Trump’s book “The Art of the Flip Flop. Yes, I’m For Everything You Are and I have a Trophy Wife”.

    The flip flop is a time honored tradition as old as the pilgrims landing in America and telling the Indians “We come in peace.” That went well (if you’re not an Indian).

    It is worth noting that as bad as Trump is, everyone else in the GOP field this year was much worse. Imagine that.

    What makes Trump unelectable is Pence, who makes George Bush look downright sane and smart compared to the swivel-eyed loons of today’s GOP.

    Let’s face it, if candidates told everyone what they actually intended to do, they’d never get elected. For example:

    – $3.5 trillion in tax cuts
    – start wars based on lies
    – cripple the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
    – spy on everyone
    – invade four countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia)
    – elect Dick Cheney to search for a VP
    – change Posse Comitatus
    – try to privatize Social Security/Medicare
    – increase inequality
    – run up trillions in debt
    – et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

    – extend the Bush tax cuts
    – not prosecute Wall Street bankers responsible for the mess
    – pass an ineffective jobs bill
    – make inequality worse
    – expand the wars to 18 countries ( Afghanistan (carryover from Bush), Cameroon, Chad, Iraq (carryover – from Bush), Iraq (War on ISIS), Jordan, Korea, Libya (overthrow), Libya (War on ISIS), Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan (carryover from Bush), Somalia, Strait of Hormuz, Syria (War on ISIS), Turkey, Uganda, Yeman)
    – pass more trade agreements
    – offer Social Security/Medicare in exchange for balancing the budget
    – crack down on whistleblowers
    – cause Dems historic losses at state and national level
    – pass privatized health insurance bill written by insurance industry
    – et cetera, et cetera, et cetera

    And now here comes Hillary and Donald, two of the most ethically-challenged candidates to ever run.

    Former Goldwater-girl, now New Democrat Hillary beats out self-described “ Socialist * ” Bernie Sanders, who in 2010 said he would not vote for a healthcare bill that didn’t have the public option, then promptly reversed himself after a trip on Air Force One and voted for it. (* not the Jeremy Corbin kind of Socialist, but the “vote for all wars and military funding” kind of Capitalist/Socialist).

    FDR would have had a good laugh as Hillary stood in Four Freedoms Park as pronounced herself the heir to FDR. Never mind the Wall Street bankers in the audience nor their campaign contributions, and all the six-figure speeches. And never mind the emails, trust me, we’re all good, nothing to see here, move along.

    But then again, where are the qualified candidates?

    Good question. There are no FDRs or JFKs/RFKs in sight.

    Every four years, the Green Party climbs out of the woodwork to try and cobble together 0.36% of the vote. They have very few elected reps at the local level and none at the state or federal level. Nobody can tell you what their platform is because they themselves don’t even know. This year’s strategy is novel: We’re not the other guys and Bernie voters we love you. Yeah, that’ll work.

    The Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson has offered Mitt Romney a place in his administration if elected. Can’t wait.

    There is a good reason on top of all the usual Clintonian nonsense to be worried if Hillary gets elected: a nuclear war with Russia and China. Obama has surrounded Russia with NATO (remember Cuba, this is much worse). And like Stein says, everything Hillary accuses Trump of, she has already done. And then there’s all the State Department favors for money, Clinton Foundation, yada yada, yada.

    Let’s face the fact that both Democrats & Republicans aren’t fit to run this country. They are the reason the country is in the mess it’s in.

    Power doesn’t necessarily corrupt as much as it attracts corruptible people (sane people are usually attracted to things other than power).

    No real saviors this year, more like Loki.

    Which begs the question: how far can you go down the wrong path before you can’t back on the right one?

    We’re at that point in 2016.

Comments are closed.