(Part 2) Best products from r/Trumpgret

You realize $40k a year is $20/hour right?

And that crab meat is about $60/pound at minimum wages so what do you think it would be when you increase the wage by 150% or more when the vast majority of the production cost is in labor (since it's all handpicked)?

https://www.amazon.com/lb-Fresh-Jumbo-Lump-Crabmeat/dp/B0000SX9YQ

Also, how much do you pay for a gallon of milk and where do you live? I live in New England and pay $4 per gallon, but we also have one of the highest paid farming industries in the country:

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452093.htm#st

https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes452092.htm#st

So it almost certainly will raise the prices, especially in a labor intensive industry like hand-picked crab meat. In the case of crab meat though, it is considered a luxury product and a price increase has little impact on the consumers other than them not getting their comfort food. Milk on the other hand is almost a necessity, especially if you are raising young children, and the fact remains that any price increase on a necessity for life will adversely affect the poorest population the most while impacting the richest population the least. So simply raising wages across the board in food production is a very bad, almost Republican, idea without additional subsidies to offset the negative impact on the poorest segment of the population.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly doesn’t help there were rumors that Trump kept a copy on his nightstand.

Or the whole “fake news” thing being quite literally synonymous with Hitler’s “lügenpresse” rhetoric. I will note, the term pre-dates the Third Reich by nearly a hundred years, but that doesn’t discount how it was used by fascist and our new Walmart brand fascist-wannabe president.

Besides, it’s not like there’s a book about this exact topic that just came out.

A: "Hey guys, let's create a process where an administrative subdivision of the executive branch can remove a constitutional right from US citizens without judicial oversight."

B: "What are you, some kind of fascist? We don't take people's rights away in this country without due process and a trial with competent representation!"

A: "No, really guys, it's ok. We will only do it for the bad constitutionally protected rights."

B: "Bad rights? What the fuck you talking 'bout Willis?"

A: (Whispers) "You know, the Second Amendment."

B: "Oh, say no more! I'm totally OK with that. It isn't like it is a real right anyway."

Actually it's way worse than that. Emotional reasoning affects people of all I.Q.s, they can be completely able to make rational decisions as long as they are not emotionally invested in it. As soon as it is something emotional, their reasoning goes to shit. The more intelligent they are, the better they are at defending the emotional position to themselves. And no, this isn't a false equivalence argument , there is a ton of evidence that the right wing are way worse, plus fox etc use it deliberately and always lead with something fear or anger inducing so they can get their bullshit in while logic is effectively switched off. Good sources, https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

And

https://www.amazon.com.au/d/ebook/Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility-Human-Reason-Everyday/B001D1SS2M/ref=sr_1_6?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1496189722&sr=1-6&keywords=Reasoning+everyday

On the day of the vote, Representative Claudia Tenney (R) swore up and down that the bill would reduce the deficit; and even bring about a surplus.

-----------------------------

• NPR: GOP Rep. Tenney On The Tax Bill: 'This Is Actually Going To Work'
  
  Initially she claims that the tax cuts will fix everything:
  
  > Tax cuts make growth happen. Almost all economists are now saying: if we're to continue the 3% growth we're seeing now (without even having the tax cuts passed) - we're going to be eliminating that deficit. And not only eliminating, we could see even larger growth; as we:
  >
  > - see the stock market continue to grow
  > - see more labor participation
  > - we're seeing unemployment go down
  >
  > And those things are going to be happening in the larger scale, and we could be seeing even greater than 3% growth. Which in a short period of time we're going to reduce the deficit, and we're also going to be reducing the long term debt of this nation. Finally growth is going to catch up.
  
  First of all, that's all bullshit. All of it.
  
  But it sounds absolutely great if it were true:
  
  
• not only will the tax cuts will pay for themselves
  
• not only will the deficit not go up
  
• not only will the deficit not remain steady
  
• not only will the deficit go down
  
• it will trigger a surplus
  
  This tax cut will put the budget into surplus - something not seen since Bill Clinton raised taxes triggering the largest economic boom in 50 years. This means there will be plenty of cash to protect Medicare, Medicaid, public services!
  
  But then she notes that all of that is a lie.
  
  > Next year we're going to be reducing spending, which is going to be another aspect of this.
  
  Ari Shapiro then noted that the AARP is concerned that with this tax cut, the deficit will in fact not shrink, and the government will then try to cut in entitlement programs.
  
  -------------------
  
  > Aside: The rule long known by economists is for dealing with a depression is:
  >
  > - in tough times: the government has to prime the pump with large deficit spending
  > - and when times are good, it's time to raise taxes to pay it back
  >
  > And this /r/punchableface (who sits on the Financial Services Committee) doesn't understand that.
  >
  ----------------------------
  
  She responds to the concerns about the need to cut spending after the tax cut fails to improve the economy:
  
  > I just marvel at the sudden concern in deficit spending by the democrats and liberal organizations after eight years of unprecedented debt growth. If we do nothing we're going to see spiraling into increased debt, and into increased deficits
  
  
  
• Claim A: after this tax cut we will see the eliminate the deficit (lie)
  
• Claim B: after this tax cut we will see the spiraling of the deficit (true)
  
  Pick one.
  
  And then, as a bonus, she concedes a major selling point of the tax plan. It was supposed to simplify the tax code (the idea being save costs, and then cut taxes to make it revenue neutral). Instead the tax cuts just cut taxes, with the complicated tax plan remaining:
  
  > Ari Shapiro: Part of the original goal was to simplify the tax code and eliminate loopholes. Why didn't that happen?
  >
  > Noise Hole: I think that one of the issues as we wanted to have deeeper cuts, and deeper cuts of the lower and middle income taxpayers, we had to make a decision between:
  >
  > - simplification
  > - and deeper cuts
  
  So the goals for the tax plan:
  
  
• deep cuts for
  
  • business: ☑
    
  • rich: ☑
    
  • middle class: ☐ (sorry, we couldn't get to it)
    
  • lower class: ☐ (sorry, we couldn't get to it)
    
• simplification: ☐ (sorry, we couldn't get to it)
  
  That leaves tax cuts for businesses and the rich, all while increasing the deficit, and requiring cuts to entitlement programs, social security, Medicare, Medicaid.
  
  The ink wasn't even dry on the bill that was supposed to give the US Federal Government oodles of money to work with, and they're already in on the need to cut spending because of the deficits they're going to be experiencing next year.
  
  
  RemindMe! 1 year "Republicans full-of-shit tax plan failed to deliver, and now they want to cut spending"