President Trump’s ‘deal’ with the Democrats may not be as it seems

As seems to be totally common, the media and RINOs have railed, gnashed their teeth, and accused PRESDT of changing his program, abandoned his principles, and plotted the deaths of thousands. It has occurred to me that he has adapted to that false outburst and may very well be playing to their actions in order to show the majority of thinking citizens just how far out of decency they are.

It was somewhat amusing to me to observe, on TV, the facial expressions on Senator Pro-Tem McConnell and House Speaker Ryan when Trump announced an agreement with the respective minority leaders in each house. House Minority Leader “Queen” Nancy Pelosi, D-California, seemed to feel elated at having made an agreement with Trump to work against the majority leaders. Senate Minority Leader “Chuckie” Schumer promptly went to a podium and in less than polite terms, accepted the “agreement” and boasted (it seemed to me) of having bested the POTUS. We’ll see just how it works out in the end. In all of this, the major media seems fixated on the approaching hurricane(s) which gives us a slight respite from their continual falsely stated blasts at anything done by someone with an “R” by their name.

On the surface, the whole agreement to have a three-month extension with an increase in the debt limit seems to fly in the face of what PRESDT had campaigned on to gain election.

However, I would caution all of us to adopt a wait-and-see attitude, as it has occurred to me that they have run up against a seasoned dealmaker and they could end up on the proverbial short end of the stick. From my perspective, most professional and many amateur politicians are all too eager to jump to the quickest and most convenient conclusion that  most closely fits their individual desired outcome. My definitions of the two classes of politicians are that a professional politician is one who holds office where there is a nice, even if limited, financial compensation, while the amateur politician is one who, like my experience, received none, except for reimbursement of expenses, such as travel mileage. In this situation, the circumstances have been radically modified by external forces, out of the control of any in the political scene, or for that matter anyone else.

It seems absolutely necessary to provide for an increased borrowing capacity to allow funds to  be available for recovery from storm damage. The same would be true if the “nut case” in North Korea would do something completely stupid, like aim one of his donated rockets at one of our own or protected landmasses. If that happens, it would be my suggestion to use one, or more, of the MOABs (mother of all bombs) available to take out his personal palace and government offices – and, hopefully, he and his military officials – without serious harm to his enslaved citizens.  That approach would serve to remove, or sharply reduce, the escalation into a worldwide nuclear war  in which no one would come out a winner.

Turning to other campaign promises of programs, it has previously been stated by me the suggestion that the House push through a bill to enact the proposed Fair Tax as a bill with a seven-year “sunset” as a trial, also setting aside all the existing income tax laws for that time. Thus we would cease to have tax collections on income received beginning January 1, 2018, with the Fair Tax collections beginning then. The IRS would still function to receive the tax returns for 2017 and any audits for it and previous years. If that were to come to pass and the massive benefits projected come to fruition, the citizens could rise up and force the Congress to begin the process to repeal Amendment 16. If successful, that would automatically repeal all of the income tax laws that would then be under suspension. That may be a hopeless dream given the make up of the, unfortunately, majority of members of Congress and their leaders, who in my opinion do not have the best interests of the population under consideration at any time. The answer to that problem lies  with a better-informed voting population, a major reduction in the instances of illegal voting, and a major change in the attitudes of party officialdom. It has been my opinion that there is far too much of an attitude of “go along to get along” some of which is due to the mistaken attitude of accepting for leadership any person who comes forward, sounds good, and is a relative newcomer to the scene thus with no action track record.

For the continuing of the constitutional republic we were founded with, this must be done.