The Truth About the Trump Budget


The Democrats are up in arms about the Trump budget. Cruel, Barbaric, Mean are some of the nicest words they have used to describe it and it just goes downhill from there. As usual the spokespeople of the Trump administration have not been able to defend the budget effectively so it falls upon independent bloggers like me to get the truth out the best I can. On a side note I am convinced Trump would be better served if he outsourced his messaging to independents , 4chan, and reddit. We would do a better job than his current team.

The primary line of attack the democrats are using is that President Trump is cutting 800 billion dollars from Medicaid therefore he is throwing grandma off a cliff. This is not true. The budget actually adds more money to medicaid and other entitlements every year. This is what is actually happening. There is a projection of how many people would be enrolled for Medicaid in the future and that medicaid would need a certain amount of money in the future. If you allocate less than that then the democrats deem it as a cut. If you are on medicaid this year and next this will not affect you.


The philosophy behind the budget plays a major part in the conflict here. When democrats and republicans make a budget they expect that the amount of people seeking entitlements will increase or stay at the same pace that they are now. When Trump and sane republicans make a budget they expect that this budget will help people earn more money and therefore this will reduce the number of people who rely on entitlements or at the very least slows the growth of the enrollees.

The budget is the blueprint of your plan for the economy. It is what you would like the economy to achieve. With the plans they present if the democrats are successful then you would have more people enrolled via welfare than ever. If the Trump plan is succesful then you would have fewer people enrolled for entitlements. Remember the budget is only supposed to be for one year. If it turns out the projections are not working then you can always add more money in the future. In essence the democrats want people mired in poverty and living of entitlements while Trump and sane republicans are taking a risk to lift them out of it.


At this point in the conversation it is usually the Republicans that cry out. What about the debt? If the plans to remove more people from entitlements fail then the deficit will be higher than ever. This is true, but then so what?

One thing that republicans don’t like to admit is that if Romney had won the debt would still have gone up. It may not have doubled like it did under Obama but it would still have gone up. If you put the most committed deficit hawk in power during the time of Obama the debt would have still gone up. At the end of the day any meaningful attempts to tackle the debt and deficits will have to go through entitlement reform. That is only possible if people are earning enough that they get out of it and are able to look at it objectively. Presiding over 8 years of supposedly massive growth while ordinary people have the same income they did when your massive growth started will not help it. If we have budgets that promote the status quo where we add more and more people to welfare then nothing will change and the problem will get worse. At some point we have to take the risk and try to lift people off poverty so they no longer need entitlements. Only then will they agree to change it.

Stimulus vs Tax Cut

Everyone democrat who was wildly applauding the stimulus by Obama is now staunchly opposed to the tax cuts by President Trump. The tax cuts and stimulus achieve the same thing. They stimulate the economy by making more money available to people. In the stimulus companies were able to stay open and keep paying their employees while others were able to expand and with tax cuts the same results are achieved.

There is one major difference that has to be pointed out. With the stimulus you gave all the benefits up front. Each company was handed a sack of money from the Obama administration. If the companies did not live up to their end of the deal then there was nothing Obama could do. Incidentally this is also the problem a lot of people have with the Iran deal. Tax cuts are different. They are not sacks of money to be handed out but rather promises that we will not take as much of their income in the future. It is implied that we are doing this so they can employ more Americans and offer higher wages. If this does not materialize then we can always remove the tax cuts.

In the past tax cuts were given but America was not a competitive place to invest in. Companies instead invested in India, China, and other countries. In effect our tax cuts funded their growth. To be completely fair with the corporations it is very hard to invest in a place that says on paper it will take 39.1% of your profits when other places say they will only take 15-20% sometimes less. It is time we used tax cuts to fund our growth.

The Trump budget is good enough. Something needs to be done to attempt to lift people up from poverty. If we keep doing what we have done before we will only achieve the same results.

Debunking the Myths on the Trump Tax Plan


There have been plenty of attacks against the tax plan proposed by President Trump. I personally love the tax plan as it is everything you could want. Realistic taxes for the rich and corporations. Lower taxes on the poor and middle class. Best of all the new tax code is simple and easy to use as it pushes everyone to use standardized deductions. It’s no wonder tax attorneys and accountants are against it. They would lose a lot of business as people begin using standardized deductions.

There are two main arguments people use when they claim they are against the tax reform proposed by Trump. First that it would blow up the deficit. Second only the very wealthy would benefit from the tax cut.

The Tax Cut Will Increase the Deficit

When discussing how the tax cut will affect the deficit we have to take a look at how the taxes collected are calculated. Whenever any analysis is done on this point people assume that the figures presented are gospel truth and base everything on that. There are two main problems with how the figures are calculated.

The first major problem is it assumes there are no deductions and other loopholes and that everyone paid the statutory tax rates. Whenever business leaders on the left discuss the tax cuts they always say that the tax rate is not as high as you would think like Warren Buffet for example in his recent interview. The document detailing the differences in tax collection are almost always prepared by tax attorneys and accountants as well. People who make a living finding and maximizing these deductions. According to the Wall Street Journal the actual tax rate is 24%. The GAO says around 12-16%. The amount should be in the middle of that. Calculating your collection based on 35% is dishonest and does not present a clear picture. If companies actually paid that there would be none left registered in the US.

The second major problem with their numbers is that it takes income tax by itself. Economists have a phrase called “ceteris paribus” to hand wave away all variables they do not want to deal with. In the report by the Tax Policy Center they specifically mention that they do not take any other macroeconomic effects into consideration. The concept may have some uses but it distorts what is actually happening with this tax cut. When you are given a tax cut you do not use it to swim around in a pool of Trump bucks like Scrooge Mcduck. You would use the money. It would most likely be used to buy other things which would generate sales or other local taxes. You could invest it if you have nothing to buy which would then generate capital gains tax. You could deposit it into a bank allowing them to lend out more money. Almost everything you can do with the money that is not taken from you would be taxed after you use it in some shape, way, or form. This would make up for any shortfall in collection from income taxes. After all nothing states that all the funds of the government must come from income taxes. If you have ever heard anyone argue for giving a stimulus to boost the economy the exact same arguments would apply.

The Tax Cut is For the Rich

There are two things people refer to when they state this. First the tax brackets for the rich when it comes to personal income taxes and next the corporate income taxes dropping down from 35 to 15%.

I will go with the corporate tax argument first as it is easier to explain. As I explained earlier numerous sources respected by the left from Warren Buffet to various publications have stated that the actual tax rate is not 35%. Moving the tax bracket from 12% to 15% or 20% to 15% does not sound as controversial does it? That is not the entire picture though. When companies pay taxes the companies that can scale to afford excellent tax lawyers invariably end up paying lower taxes while those who can only afford turbotax or do their own pay higher taxes. Aside from the tax rates not being what is advertised it ends up being higher for smaller companies than it is for larger ones. Reducing the rate and then removing deductions means that all companies pay the same rate. This actually hurts the rich companies and helps the poor ones.

On to personal income taxes. The defining characteristic of the tax plan is that it pushes almost everyone to take standardized deductions. If you wanted a tax plan to benefit the poor and middle class this would be how you do it. As a general rule the poorer someone is the better standardized deductions are for him. Those with lower incomes would not have the disposable income necessary to have plenty of deductions nor would they be able to avail of services of an accountant to find all the deductions that they could benefit from.

In 2016 75% of people filing income taxes decided to use the standardized deduction because it is more than what they would by itemizing. President Trump would more than double this deduction in his tax plan which means everyone gets more than double the deductions. In contrast the highest earners rely almost exclusively on deductions to get their taxes down. Most of the deductions are going away under the Trump tax plan. Just removing the SALT (state and local tax) deduction alone would remove a lot of the deductions high income earners use. Add the fact that President Trump is also proposing a limit on the amount of deductions of 100000 on single and 200000 on jointly filed taxes and the case that the tax cut is favorable to the rich is harder to make. Of course this will never get discussed as the media will only discuss the changes to the raw tax rates. My personal fear is the reverse might be true. Removing the deductions and placing a hard limit on the amount that can be claimed may cause the wealthy to flee the country like that French actor who took Belgian citizenship to avoid a tax hike.

Once you take a look at the entire plan it is both very fair and remarkably simple. I encourage everyone to take a look at the tax code themselves instead of relying on media or “the experts”. Remember they need the tax code to be complex or they would not be able to charge a high amount for their services.

Kekistanis Need President Trump to Support Net Neutrality


The FCC under President Trumps appointee has begun efforts to remove rules that ensure net neutrality. As a Trumplican and Kekistani I ask President Trump to stop this. Not only that I call on other Kekistanis  in reddit, 4 chan, and the blogosphere to lend their voice and ask President Trump to stop this as well. I do this fully aware of the counterarguments saying that we have never really been under any rules for net neutrality and there have been no major incidents in the past.

I ask for this not only because it is in my best interest but because it is in the best interests of the Trump administration and Republicans in general. I will not go into detail with the arguments but at its heart removing net neutrality benefits established companies. Companies with established audiences or platforms can afford to pay for express lanes while start ups and single bloggers can’t.

Take a step back and look around at which sites support Republicans and which sites support Democrats. Lets consider social media first. Anyone who frequents Reddit knows that we are already having problems with the site admins enforcing the rules against conservative subreddits but not against liberal ones. In Twitter you have right leaning personalities banned for the slightest reasons while left leaning ones can call for those in the right to be killed in terrible ways and still be safe. In Facebook you have allegations in the past of the site fixing their news so that only liberal sources showed sidelining conservative ones. Removing net neutrality means we support these companies at the expense of new start-ups. Why would we support a policy that helps companies that do everything they can to hinder us?

In YouTube you already have conservative commentators like Steven Crowder complaining that left leaning outlets are promoted by the site while right leaning ones are not. Take a look at the websites supporting the administration and those who do not. The major newspapers and their online outlets are all left leaning. A lot of the bigger sites like the Huffington Post are as well. On the other side the team supporting the administration and conservatives in general are small independent bloggers like me and some sites like Red State, National Review, and American Thinker that while established are usually fewer and poorly funded compared to their liberal counterparts. Supporting the removal of net neutrality means that only liberal viewpoints will be heard.

The single greatest con that the Democrats have been able to pull is to convince Americans that the GOP is the party of big money. Clinton raised 1.4 billion while Trump raised 600 million. Obama outraised Romney by a couple of 100 million as well. In 2016 on average Democrat senatorial and congressional candidates spent more than their Republican counterparts. The difference is even more pronounced in the federal level. If you make this contest about money we will lose.

At the end of the day we are in an information war with the liberals. Since I mentioned info wars I am also compelled to state that Bill Clinton is a rapist. We are doing everything we can to support the Trump administration. We ask that President Trump support us as well.

His Name Was Seth Rich


His name was Seth Rich. The mainstream media is about to go into overdrive about a possible impeachment of President Trump. They are beginning to show their desperation as the Russian narrative is about to be broken. The only justification ever offered for the Russian collusion is that Russia hacked the DNC servers and gave the information to Wikileaks. If the information did not come from Russians then they would have done very little or nothing to help Trump.

Leak Vs. Hack

From the very start there has been very little discussion in the media about whether the information was leaked or hacked. The Democrats needed the information to be hacked to fit in with their Russian narrative and so it was a hack not a leak. Some of the DNC operatives have recently said in their new book that the Russian angle was determined right after Hillary lost the election. It makes sense as the Clinton team would need to find employment in the future and would need to justify why they lost a campaign and states that have not been lost for decades when they had twice the money the other campaign had. The fact that there was a possibility that it could have been a leak was not even discussed.

Make no mistake evidence does exist for both sides and it is not as one sided as it seems. On the one hand you have the intelligence community saying that it was a hack. Except that you don’t really have anyone on the intelligence community providing anything specific instead we have the press quoting some “anonymous sources” confirming that it was the Russian who gave the info to Wikileaks. I hope i do not need to tell anyone that blind trust in the intelligence community is not a good thing. Democrats seem to have forgotten the lessons taught by Iraq.

On the other hand you have Wikileaks. Julian Assange has consistently said that the information came from a leaker not a hacker. Wikileaks has a reputation as never having to recant any of the information they have given out. Even the DNC emails themselves were proven to be completely true. I am not advocating for blind trust for Wikileaks as well. Yet the only argument the left has for accepting the anonymous sources of the NYT is their reputations. Surely in that case the reputation of the organization with a 100% accuracy rating should be considered.


This next part is not discussed at all. In fact I may be the first person to point this out. If you pay attention to nothing else in this article please pay attention to the next sentence. The Intelligence Community has motive to discredit Wikileaks. I have bolded it for your convenience. Read the bolded sentence five times if possible. With the information given during Iraq, the Vault 7 release, Chelsea Manning and others Wikileaks has proven to be a very effective check on the powers of the government. The intelligence community would love nothing more than for Wikileaks to be tied to the Russians so that they would lose the trust of the American people. With no independent party to check them the intelligence community can go back to doing whatever they want.

Seth Rich

We now go to Seth Rich. According to his family, most of which are democrats and some of which are current democrat political operatives, Seth Rich was a lifelong committed democrat who loved Hillary and would never ever think of leaking to Wikileaks. Julian Assange on the other hand has been hinting heavily that his source was Seth Rich. He has offered a reward for information of the murder and has publicly stated that the operatives which gave him the emails put their life on the line doing so. Right after Rich was murdered. Of course Seth Rich is dead so we can attribute anything we want to him. His family can say that he would die before betraying Hillary Clinton and we can say otherwise. The only thing that matters is what he actually did. Anonymous sources as well as the investigator assigned to his case have stated that his computer forwarded 44000 emails from the DNC servers to Wikileaks. The exact amount of emails that have been published. The investigator has of course been silenced by the family of Seth and a confidentiality agreement but the questions still remain.

We now go to the murder of Seth Rich. This comes after emails from Podesta saying that they should make “examples” of the leakers. The murder of Seth Rich has been ruled as a “botched robbery”. This is very strange. In a robbery the primary motive is financial gain. In a botched robbery what usually happens is the items of value are stolen but the victim is killed in the process. In this case the victim was killed but everything of value was left alone. It is almost like the killer was not interested in them.


Given that the intelligence community has more motive to lie about Wikileaks than they ever did about Iraq. The credibility of Wikileaks itself. The suspicious murder of Seth Rich and the heavy insinuation from Assange that the leaker was Rich. The fact that the DNC denied the FBI access to their servers despite being sure of the hacking (why bother about your privacy when everything has been compromised anyway). Why exactly are we not even looking into the possibility that this was a leak and not a hack? Could the media have some sort of bias and are pushing their preconceived conclusion for their own ends?

If the media will not do their job then we will have to do it for them.

His Name Was Seth Rich.

The Trump Tax Plan and You

download (3)

In my previous article I broke down the major changes to the tax code that Trump is proposing and showed that the major beneficiaries would be the poor and the middle class. One of the difficulties with tax is that sometimes abstract arguments do not work and we have to see how it benefits us directly. For today I will try to list some scenarios to show how it would benefit people at different income levels.

Before I begin I realize that every person is different so it is very unlikely the scenarios I offer will match your situation directly. You may have some additional credits or deductions I do not list. There are two facts that I want you to keep in mind as you go thru this. First in 2016 75% of all people who filed income tax opted for standardized deduction not itemized ones. Second in 2016 almost half of Americans working made 30000 or less.

Scenario 1: Single Making 30000

This would most likely describe a younger person starting out. Under President Obama the standardized deduction was 6300. You would subtract that from 30000 giving you a taxable income of 23700. This puts you in the 15% tax bracket. Your first 10350 would be untaxed. The next 9275 at 10% and everything else at 15%. Under Obama your tax liability would be 1538.75.

Under President Trump your standardized deduction would be 15000 giving you a taxable income of 15000. This would place you in the 15000 tax bracket which means you pay 0%. Your tax liability would be 0 under President Trump.

Scenario 2: Joint making 45000

This would most likely describe a struggling family. Under President Obama the standardized deduction for joint filers was 12600. If you subtract this from 45000 you get a taxable income of 32400. The first 10350 would be untaxed. The next 9275 would be at 10%. Everything else at 15%. Under Obama your liability would be 2843.75.

Under President Trump the standardized deduction for joint filers is 30000. Subtract that and it leaves you with a taxable income of 15000. This puts you in the 0 tax bracket which means you pay 0 under President Trump.

Scenario 3: Single making 60000

Estimates for what make you middle class vary by city. The average I got is 60000. Depending on where you live this could be higher or lower. Under President Obama your standardized deduction would be 6300 leaving you with taxable income of 53700. Like earlier the first 10350 is untaxed. The next 9275 at 10%. The next 28375 at 15%. The rest of the 5700 at 25%. This gives you a total liability of 6608.75 under President Obama.

Under President Trump you would have a standardized deduction of 15000. Leaving you with a taxable income of 45000. The first 15000 is untaxed. Everything else is at 12%. Under President Trump the liability of a single middle class person would be 3600. Almost half.

Scenario 4: Joint Making 100000

The average for a middle class family seems to be 100000. Under President Obama you would have a standard deduction of 12600 leaving you with a taxable income of 87400. As always the first 10350 is untaxed. The next at 9275 at 10%. The following 28375 at 15% and the remaining 39400 at 25%. Under President Obama the liability of this middle class family is 15033.75.

The same family under President Trump would have a deductible of 30000 leaving taxable income of 70000. The first 15000 is not taxed. The next 37500 gets taxed at 12% and the rest at 25%. Under President Trump the liability of the same middle class family would be 8875.

As you can see for most people earning 30000 and below they would find themselves paying no taxes and for the middle class would have their tax burden halved.

100 Days of Winning

images (3).jpg

It has been 100 days since the onset of the Age of Trump and it has been a fun ride. Everything seems to be moving in hyper speed and it feels like Trump has been President for years. There are some things i love and some things that I am not too fond of but overall I am pleased. I would rate his first 100 days as a success.

Think back to when you first supported Trump. Why did you do it? For some people it was all about the courts and getting more conservative justices. For others it was economic nationalism. We needed jobs back into this country. For more people it was about the fight against terrorism. Immigration and the 2nd amendment was also an issue for a lot of people.  What unifies us is our desire for change and in this regard Trump has delivered. We wanted something different from what previous administrations had done before. Clinton, Bush, and Obama largely delivered the same economic and foreign policies despite all claiming to be agents of change in their particular elections.


The age of Trump has had the biggest impact on the legal system. Justice is of course a great pick. Almost all of the people who support Trump support Gorsuch too. Most people who do have some sort of issue with the Justice would have just preferred a different name but would have made a pick that is just as conservative. This is a change from the type of justices that Obama would have selected.

The biggest benefit of the Trump presidency is that it allowed the judicial system to display its arrogance. In Hawaii v Trump and other similar cases the liberal courts have stated, in their legal decisions, that the travel ban and other acts are unconstitutional on the sole basis they were done by President Trump. If any other President had done the exact same executive orders then they would suddenly be constitutional. Nothing could showcase the need for judicial reform more than the courts acting on their animus towards one person.


Another area where our President has been very successful. Almost every source I have seen confirms that illegal immigration and border crossings are down. This is despite unprecedented levels of obstruction from the judiciary. It turns out all that is needed to curb the problem is government officials who are willing to enforce existing laws. It costs a lot of money to have the cartels smuggle you across the border, Visa application processes are lengthy and plane tickets are expensive as well. Once the potential illegals picked up on the fact that we would begin to enforce our laws there it made no sense for them to continue.

That takes care of the present but we also have to take care of the future. This means only one thing. Build that wall. An everlasting testament to our commitment to following the laws and policies of our country. One that cannot be turned off by future administrations. We can only hope that congressional Republicans realize that they work for their voters and work with him on it.


We are in a unique time in history. Companies are actually afraid of sending your jobs overseas. With his use of twitter our President has made it clear that there will be public relations consequences for companies who outsource. This has stopped a lot of the damage and has even managed to fix some of it as companies put extra effort into making sure that the jobs stay in America. The stick only goes so far though. It only ensures that companies are afraid to leave the country. Given enough incentive from other countries they will still do so.

The other half is the carrot. We have to make sure that America is a place that they want to do business in and not just a place that they are forced to be in. The tax reform package takes care of that. A one time fee for repatriating funds. Lowering the tax rates from 39% to something more reasonable. Streamlining the deductions of the tax code to make them easier to apply. All are things that help the country be more attractive to business. Requiring companies to buy American and hire American and rewarding them for doing so, easing regulations, and issuing more favorable executive orders for American companies all help as well.


We can see that America is finally getting the respect it deserves worldwide. Other countries may not like it as this means they can take advantage of us less but the respect is there. Mexico and Canada have asked to renegotiate NAFTA. Trump has also pulled us out of the TPP. Russia and China our two great competitors in the world have become more friendly and willing to work with us in the Middle East and North Korea. It is worth noting that in the Obama administration Russia gave the US the same status as ISIS in their recent peace treaty in the middle east and China would not even give Obama the same recognition that it gives lesser states. You could feel their contempt for the United States but no more.

It is concerning that the President launched a missile strike into Syria. Yet what is one more missile strike in the Middle East? Its just another grain of sand in the desert. The residents send out their children to kill others as suicide bombers and kill more before lunch than the US does in one missile strike. The fact that it was used to get a better negotiating platform with the Chinese alone justifies it. A couple of missile strikes here and there to further our interests is acceptable.

North Korea is a difficult situation as well and worries me more though I am willing to give our President a lot more leeway on it. Every single President all the way to Obama has punted the issue. It is very possible that Trump will punt on the issue as well. Yet the problem still remains and has to be dealt with sometime. It is very possible that the next President will have to deal with North Korea as they have nukes capable of reaching Los Angeles. I hope we resolve it before that even if the solution hurts.

100 days have passed. Here is hoping to many more days of winning.

How to Wiretap Your Political Opponents

th (1).jpg

We now have more information as to how the FISA warrant was obtained, enabling the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign, allowing us to create a step by step guide on how to use the intelligence community to further the interests of your political party.

Step 1: Prepare a Dossier

In this step you are looking to provide justification for your underlings in the intelligence community to spy on your political rivals. Hire some random person and have them prepare a dossier of information to be used in the campaign. The dossier itself does not need to be accurate. It can have names with incorrect spelling, people rising from the grave to take meetings, and you can even say that Trump officials are meeting the Russians in Europe when their passport and multiple eye witnesses place them in the United States at the same time. They can even be on video in the US and it would not matter.

The content of the dossier does not matter. Only your political allies will be able to see it anyway. By the time you release the dossier to your friendly media organizations its job would already have been done.

Step 2: Get a FISA Warrant

In this step we get authorization from the secret court to use our allies in the FBI to spy on our political opponents. Thankfully the secret court does not look too hard at the evidence presented as they have only rejected 11 requests out of 35000. This is a blessing as the only thing we have to go on is the dossier we have paid our agent to make.

Even when dealing with a court that is effectively a rubber stamp we still have to be careful. What we are doing is so criminal that some of our judges may balk at it. It would look bad if we were responsible for 20% of all the rejections handed out by the court since it started. We have to carefully select the judge that rules on the case, refiling as necessary till we get a friendly judge. After all we can change the name of the actual target to refile. It doesn’t matter who we tap as long as he is in the campaign.

Step 3: ?????

This step is particularly easy. We  have Susan Rice unmask the people involved in the leaks. Distribute the information to our allies in the media and have various people we appointed act as “unnamed sources”. Our subordinates can also spread the information around various political circles to make sure that the information gets to the Clinton campaign.

Step 4: Profit!

There we go. We now have a 4 step program to use the intelligence services to spy on our political opponents. We don’t even need any outside evidence as we manufacture the dossier ourselves! Nixon was an amateur to use criminals.