Re: OT: Trump's Cabinet Picks

On 19/11/2024 11:38 am, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:22:13 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
 

On 11/18/2024 3:07 PM, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:01:09 -0500, chuck <donnyduck@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Trump the Great Protector has succeeded in duping Americans to fear by
depending the issues. The outcomes will reduce taxes for the rich,

>
The wealth of "The rich" is mostly in stocks or productive
enterprises. If you tax them, they will sell stocks or industries, and
that will cause inflation and unemployment.
>
The tax-the-rich thing is mostly jealousy. We should be grateful to
the rich for diverting dollars away from consumption and into
investment.

>
No problem, cut taxes for the rich and then make big cuts in the Federal
administrative state, I'm OK with that. The better part of 80% of
civilian Federal employees work for the "military industrial complex" in
some capacity: DOD, DOJ, FBI, CIA, VA, Homeland Security..
>
That's not what Musk et al are gonna do though. They're gonna be like
"We cut the 3,700 people left in the Dept of Education, guys. We did it.
we saved the budget."
>
and then just swap the 325,000 military-adjacent employees for some
different goons.
>
It's not any secret the kind of Federal government the modern right
wants, it's the "night watchman" state. Nobody left in government but
jackbooted tough guys stomping around shouting at people and demanding
everyone's papers.

 The Left lost big on the election because they make no sense.
 Hint hint.

The hint is that John Larkin couldn't make sense of what they offered.
The reality is that the US has a very high level of income inequality and the majority of voters aren't doing well. This doesn't help an incumbent government.
Trump didn't have anything to offer except change (and he wasn't all that explicit about what those changes might be) but that was enough to get him elected.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney