One of the most amazing things about the disastrous results of the last American Presidential election is how fervent the belief of so many deluded Trump supporters that Trump would actually improve their lot in life. It was obvious to the majority of Americans in 2016, that the majority of his promises were abject lies, but, thanks to the basic laziness of 50% of the population, coupled with a healthy dose of voter suppression and failure to see the danger at hand, and we are left with a crazy man trying to make policy for the country.
Except, of course, Trump is not really making any policy. He doesn’t understand it and, therefore, is easily led astray by those nefarious souls in Congress who care only about building an oligarchy in a once great nation.
……..two things stand out. One is the sheer range of subjects that Trump does not understand correctly — from French urban planning to health insurance to Russian military history to where Baltimore is to domestic policy in the 1990s to his own regulatory initiatives. The other is that Trump is determined, across the board, to simply bluff and bluster through rather than admitting to any uncertainty or gaps in his knowledge.
It’s an approach that’s certainly commonplace among Trump’s cohort of rich Manhattanites. People who’ve spent years surrounded by flatterers and lackeys eager to get their hands on their money tend to come away with an inflated sense of their own domains of competence. But precisely because the demands of the presidency are so unimaginably vast, it’s a frightening attribute in a chief executive.
This past week, the nation saw two frightening examples of how that ignorance plays out in ways that will screw the average, non-millionaire, citizen, royally.
Let’s start with how our Congress, those supposed selfless representatives of the people voted to give Wall Street and Big Banks, free license to rob you blind.
Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote Tuesday night to repeal a rule that made it easier for Americans to sue their banks and credit card companies Senators passed the measure by a vote of 51-50, handing Wall Street its first major win since President Donald Trump took office in January. Two Republican senators, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Kennedy of Louisiana, sided with Democrats in opposition to the resolution.Wiping out the rule would affect tens of millions of Americans who often don’t know they are covered by an arbitration clause when they sign up for a credit card, checking account or prepaid card. Many companies tuck arbitration clauses into contracts as a way to resolve disputes outside the court system, making it harder for an individual to bring a case against a bank or credit card company.
The vote is a giant setback for every consumer in the United States. Because credit card companies insert clauses in credit card agreements, which are seldom read in detail due to their length, which basically rigs the process in favor of the banks. A consumer can still sue of course-but what regular person has the resources to go up against Bank of America?
There can be no rational argument in favor for this. None. To favor this and to vote for it, is a plain acknowledgment that you don’t care about average people and just want to ingratiate yourself to the bank.
You have to love their timing, too. This move comes hard on the heels of the Equifax calamity, and just as the Congress is shilling for a massive upward shift in the country’s wealth that is disguised as a “middle-class tax cut.” Further, it proves that our political system learned absolutely nothing from what happened in 2008, when the masters of the universe nearly blew up the entire world economy.
Let’s be clear, there is no argument in favor of this and all the evidence you need is in the recent history of Wells Fargo Bank.
For years, Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to block lawsuits from customers who alleged that unauthorized accounts had been opened in their names. Ultimately, the bank estimated that as many as 3.5 million such accounts were opened.
And what happens to all the money you are putting away for retirement, something made even more important since companies have been allowed to screw you out of your pensions? Funny you should ask because here is the second, WTF? moment of the week.
House Republicans are considering a plan to sharply reduce the amount of income American workers can save in tax-deferred retirement accounts as part of a broad effort to rewrite the tax code, according to lobbyists, tax consultants and congressional Democrats.
It is unclear if Republicans will ultimately include a cap on contributions in the tax bill that they are expected to release in the coming weeks. Such a move would almost certainly prompt a vocal backlash from middle-class workers who save heavily in such retirement accounts and from the asset management industry.
The proposals under discussion would potentially cap the annual amount workers can set aside to as low as $2,400 for 401(k) accounts, several lobbyists and consultants said on Friday. Workers may currently put up to $18,000 a year in 401(k) accounts without paying taxes upfront on that money; that figure rises to $24,000 for workers over 50. When workers retire and begin to draw income from those accounts, they pay taxes on the benefits.
The timing of when savings accounts are taxed affects how much Americans save. This would be a disincentive to save-especially if it is coupled with changes to IRA rules as is also rumored.
Again you have to ask yourself, why in God’s name, would anyone think this is good idea?
Rumors have circulated for months that negotiators were debating including a cap as a way to help offset the revenue loss from a reduction in business tax rates that Republicans have put at the center of their plan. Reducing contribution limits would be, in effect, an accounting maneuver that would create space for tax cuts by collecting tax revenue now instead of in the future.
Such a move would be likely to push Americans to shift their savings to so-called Roth accounts, where contributions are taxed immediately, and not when they are drawn out as benefits. That would increase federal tax receipts for the short run.
Rich people, who invest much differently than we peons-would not be affected as much because they don’t rely on 401K’s they way you and I do. And under the Trump tax plan, they will get most of the tax cuts on their income coming in the door. For the rest of us, when you couple this with the loss of deductibility of State and Local Taxes (SALT), the net effect is an increase on what people like me and you will have to pay.
How is that for making America great again? And remember, this revenue is going to finance a tax cut and the wars without end. Not new roads or reasonably priced health insurance that can’t be taken away from you. But to pay for a tax cut that goes to rich people.
As I said at the start, there is no rational, objective argument in favor of these legislative actions.
And we all should remember the fundamental thing about tax cuts. TAX CUTS DON’T CREATE ECONOMIC GROWTH.
They don’t. But they do keep the budget from coming into balance, and thus increase the deficit, something these Trumpkins supposedly care about. Except, of course, they don’t. This is what you voted for. Did you vote for Trump? “This disaster is on you. You do not get a pass. You do not get to claim that you thought the presidency would normalize Trump. You wanted Obamacare repeal, tax cuts for the rich, unregulated pollution, and an unfettered Wall Street. You, and especially you, are not forgiven. This catastrophe is not only Trump’s fault. It’s yours, too.”