Republican Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) this week did something remarkable for a politician: He expressed regret. “It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end,” he said, announcing that he would retire at the conclusion of his term rather than participate in the politics championed by President Trump. His remarks (and I say this despite being a Democrat and a former Obama speechwriter) were thoughtful and bold. His description of Trumpism was alarming and accurate: “Indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake.” Yet Flake’s attempt at introspection fell short. It’s not just Trump who calls “fake things true” — it’s the whole GOP. Consider, for example, the way Flake and his fellow Republicans are even now busy selling the administration’s tax plan. I was born in 1986, which means that for as long as I’ve been alive, tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations have been the central tenets of Republican orthodoxy. In the Reagan years, trickle-down theory held that tax cuts for the rich would lead to more wealth for everybody. According to George W. Bush’s “ownership society” doctrine, tax cuts meant both prosperity and freedom. When I cast my first vote for president, in 2004, these ideas were still broadly popular among Americans as a whole. Faced with the unpopularity of tax cuts that are enormously regressive, the Republicans’ strategy is simple: pretend they’re not. By the time I cast my second vote for president, however, the country had changed: A massive recession had put the lie to the idea that tax cuts inevitably lead to growth. I joined the White House as a speechwriter in 2011, and wrote speeches for President Obama on the 2012 campaign when income inequality became a major issue among the electorate. In poll after poll, focus group after focus group, it was clear that tax cuts for the wealthy were massively unpopular. It was equally clear that the Republican Party was wedded to them. That’s still true today. For nearly a decade, the centerpiece of the Republican agenda has been toxic with voters. This, to put it mildly, is a dilemma for a political party. As early as 2008, the GOP was faced with three options: A) dial back the tax cuts; B) persuade skeptical Americans that tax cuts would be good for them; C) find another way to win elections. They chose C. Donald Trump is president today not because he championed conservative ideas on taxes and spending, but because he promised to reject them. He pledged to protect so-called entitlements and said on the campaign trail that “hedge fund guys” would “be paying up.” He did promise tax cuts — but said he would focus on the middle class. Which brings us to the debate currently taking place. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has analyzed Trump’s framework. In 2018, the wealthiest 1% would receive more than 50% of the benefits. By 2027, the top 0.01% of earners would receive more than 40% of the benefits, while the bottom 80% would receive just 13%. Faced with the unpopularity of tax cuts that are enormously regressive, the Republicans’ strategy is simple: pretend they’re not. With the help of some alternative math, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declared that the average American family “would get a $4,000 raise” under Trump’s proposal. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said the proposal is about helping families who live paycheck to paycheck. Trump himself has called his plan a “middle-class bill.” None of these things is remotely true. In fact, if the tax cuts are paid for via the spending cuts Trump has already proposed, the Tax Policy Center estimates that 94% of Americans would lose money as a result. I’m not suggesting that Flake, or any other Republican, should vote against these tax cuts simply because they’re worried about Trump. But I am suggesting that they should be honest about the policies they propose. The Republican plan puts the federal government further into the red in order to lower taxes, primarily for the wealthy. If you believe that’s what America should do, make your case. Convince us. But don’t condemn the Trump administration’s dangerous falsehoods only to ignore them when it becomes convenient. Because that’s exactly the kind of moral compromise, followed by moral surrender, that brought us to this point. What Flake did this week was admirable. I really do believe he was trying his best to articulate the threat we face. But this has to be the beginning, not the end, of introspection. To maintain power, Trump relies on the Republican elites willing to condone any tactic, break any norm, stomach any lie as long it will lead to a massive upper-income tax cut. That isn’t politics as usual. It’s a form of complicity. And it, too, must end. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litt-flake-tax-plan-20171027-story.html
perfectly example of dnc brain. For months they told us that what turmp jr did was a crime posting statutes and saying that if he got oppo research from a foreign national it was a crime. now they tell us hillary's team getting oppo research from a foreign national is not even a problem. making shit up about her intermediary making it ok. when I explain a principle can not insulate themselves by hiring an agent... they still post the same b.s. over and over. then that have the unmitigated lying ass gall to post shit shit about fake anything being a gop thing.
A campaign taking DIRECT in kind donation from a foreign government is a crime A campaign hiring a research firm who in turn hire foreign researchers who in turn finds information is not a crime - you know why? Because they paid an American company, they didn't go for a quid pro quo from the Russian govt. If this kind of subtlety doesn't register with your brain, then there is no hope. Hillary's 'team' didn't get any oppo research from any foreign national, the info was submitted to Fusion GPS who didn't even release it during the election so how can this be an in kind donation to a campaign? Think before you speak You cons are so used to constant lying by your politicians that you can't think for a minute without repeating what they have told you to repeat.
you just made the same ignorant argument. pretending a person can get out of criminal liability by hiring someone else to do the crime. if, as you said, don jr committed a crime... what hillary and the dnc for 9 million dollars was far worse.
Seriously, do you not understand the difference between a CAMPAIGN and a person? It's illegal for members of a campaign to coordinate with foreigners, it's not illegal for them to hire foreign researchers to dig up information. Russians were making a IN KIND donation to Trump's campaign, which foreigner made a DONATION to Hillary's campaign? The legal question is of IN KIND DONATIONS, look up my old posts, where is the in kind donation with the dossier? Who donated? Seriously, TRY TO THINK.
you are so dense... the campaign is made up of people.. in your case potential criminals. This is why panetta says it must be investigated. hillary. the dnc, the law firm, fusion gps were all in collusion with foreign nationals... they even paid them. you know who leon pannetta is... correct? he worked for you crooks. and you know damn well hillary knew why she was paying millions of dollars... http://ntknetwork.com/panetta-intelligence-committee-needs-to-look-into-clintondnc-dossier-payment/ Former CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the Senate Intelligence Committee is going to have to look into the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for funding the controversial Trump dossier during an interview on Thursday. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Panetta how it was possible that neither “the chair of the DNC and the Clinton campaign” knew about payments for the dossier. “Well, it’s obviously something that the Intelligence Committee is going to have to look at,” Panetta said. “You know, knowing presidential campaigns, they’re big operations and somehow the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. And that could be the case here.” Panetta continued, “I really do think that the committee is going to have to get into this, determine just exactly what happened. Who knew what and when?” Blitzer followed up by asking Panetta why Clinton campaign attorney Marc Elias didn’t tell Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta, they had paid for the dossier. Elias was the lawyer was represented the Clinton campaign and DNC, during the election and is alleged to have paid Fusion GPS for the Trump dossier. “Well, it certainly makes the situation very awkward,” Panetta said. “If you’re testifying and saying you have no knowledge, and the attorney sitting next to you is one of those that knew what was involved here, I think it does raise an issue that the committee is going to have to look at and determine just exactly who knew what.”
Steele was part of the campaign? Prove it. Investigate all you want, NOTHING is going to happen, this is just another Benghazi witch hunt that ends when Mueller indicts Trump and his criminal family.
Piss off Democrats paid for the research after Republicans abandoned it, this has been on the wiki page since 2016. Who cares what Matthews or anyone else says, this is just a distraction from the collusion Trump campaign was involved in.
LMAO, Triggered. What ya gonna do for a job? It's well known the DNC is broke. Once this shit starts sticking to Hillary your internet employment opportunities look a little bleak.