increases. and wage increases, that s what would help us across the board. that is where people are suffering. when the president says trickle down economics are going to work, we re letting you know, we re not yet seeing it trickle down, and those companies are spending their money on stock buybacks. i went to a wedding and somebody said you guys are unfair to president trump. you won t talk about how great the tax cut has been. it s not actually resulting in higher wages or the person owns a lot of stock and they re looking at their 401 k and saying bring it on. they were also happy over the last eight years when the stock market went up. the trump voter was born the stock went up because of trump. even during obama s era, they knew trump would be next. the trump voter was born out of not having wage increases. that voter has not had any of
would create nor jobs, stimulate the economy. that s utterly defensible. when you call it when somebody who presumably works for the trump administration who wants to do this, calls it trickle down, they are hurting the cause. and when he says that the big ceos are going to like this the most. then that s just idiocy. you can t de fend that. patty, to you, budget director mick mulvaney came out, who is a fascinating interview that erin did with him on cnn and he said if this thing really proves it is not going to, you know, that it is going to raise taxes on the middle class in the next decade or a chunk of the middle class in the next decade like the independent policy centers are saying we re not going to sign it. what kind of bind are republicans in right now, that s the message from mulvaney and the white house. every independent analysis shows about a quarter of homes will see their taxes go up a decade from now. so what gives? well, they re in a very big bind because of
charity to the state. arthur brooks, american enterprise institute has wren a lot about the moral case for free markets and about the value of people voluntarily being philanthropic. i think if you do have a situation where we count on the government to eredistribute wealth. it actually can have a chilling effect on charity. you know, when we give to other people. we benefit i think spiritually and just in terms of our attitude our happiness and so i do think it is dangerous if we have a regulatory society where government essentially disincentivizes proift giving. that is a danger we have to think about. you know, it is a constant blowning act. i ve always said, if i believed the top down approach as i call it trickle down, you know,
business class that essentially lived very well on the proceeds of all that oil, allowing none of to it trickle down, or so little to trickle down that the slums of caracas were just horrible places, violent places seething with anger. and what chavez could do was connect with those people and give them hope, and then give them actual benefits in the form of health clinics and educational service they never had before. he paid attention to people who had been the left behinds, and they rewarded him with their very loyal support. in terms of the criticism directed towards chavez as being essentially somebody who did not advance freedom in his country, even as he did advance economic populist aims, what do you make of those criticisms? well, they have some merit. he leaned on, coerced, threatening to shot down, at times did shut down independent
corrupt political class and business class that essentially lived very well on the proceeds of all that oil, allowing none of to it trickle down, or so little to trickle down that the slums of caracas were just horrible places, violent places seething with anger. and what chavez could do was connect with those people. and give them hope, and then give them actual benefits in the form of health clinics and educational service they never had before. he paid attention to people who had been the left behinds, and they rewarded him with their very loyal support. in terms of the criticism directed towards chavez as being essentially somebody who did not advance freedom in his country, even as he did advance economic populist aims, what do you make of those criticisms? well, they have some merit. he leaned on, coerced,