Zeiger and Andrew Anglin
September 25, 2016
Triumph is a dish best served cold. With a cherry on top.
After a long campaign against our Trumpenfuhrer, it seems the skypes at the Washington Post have finally laid down the hatchet.
This week, they published an article by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross entitled “How Trump would stimulate the U.S. economy,” the message of which can be summarized as “but actually Trump is good though.”
Their credibility has collapsed, and now that they see a Trump victory looming, they want to be able to say “oh yeah, but we were objective though, look at this one article we published.”
Hillary Clinton’s economic plan would not improve this anemic growth or heal other economic ills. It would raise taxes, increase regulation, and impose further restrictions on fossil fuels that would significantly raise energy and electricity costs. Clinton would also perpetuate trade policies she helped craft that have led to chronic and debilitating trade deficits. All this points in the wrong direction.
Even Clinton’s centerpiece stimulus plan is growth-inhibiting. It would tax businesses to fund a highly leveraged national infrastructure bank. This approach would shift funds from the more efficient private sector to a less efficient government bureaucracy and introduce high-risk, subprime lending to the government.
In sharp contrast, Donald Trump’s plan is growth-inducing. It would cut taxes, reduce regulations, remove restrictions on energy development and eliminate our debilitating trade deficit. As growth rapidly accelerated, Trumpnomics would generate millions of additional jobs and trillions of dollars in additional income and tax revenue.
When your defeated enemies prostrate themselves just right.
Every nation’s GDP is driven by four components: consumption, government spending, investment and net exports (what we sell vs. what we buy). The United States’ structural economic problems are primarily focused on the investment and net exports growth drivers and associated “offshoring drag” and “trade deficit drag.”
For example, when Ford offshores new production facilities to Mexico, that both boosts the Mexican economy and reduces investment in this country, subtracting from future economic growth. That’s offshoring drag.
They are basically reflecting Trump’s talking points here. There’s no need to get into the details of the economic analysis, because it’s irrelevant; they could have found ways to claim the opposite if they felt like it.
The significant aspect of this story is in the fact that WaPo was willing to publish the opposite of their normal nonsense.
I mean, just look at these previous articles:
Not even the most extreme propaganda outlet of them all can afford to maintain this charade any longer.
The people have won.
Of course, they are continuing to publish their usual tripe, but the fact that they published a high-profile pro-Trump piece shows that they are experiencing an existential crisis.
The winds are changing, my brothers.
Our enemies are scrambling for cover, attempting to make amends for their hubris and begging for mercy.