My Fellow Americans, 2016

trigger warning

So, anyhow, we’ve seen the first “debate” between Lying’ Donny Thump:


And Lyin’ Hillary:


Both such pleasant people.

Sorry, should’ve posted that, earlier.  I know a lot of you are delicate little snowflakes.

In any event, Thump got his ass kicked, and his skipping debate prep really went a long way towards that.  Of course, we all know he’s not in it to win it…

…but that’s for another day.

Some of you, I’m sure, as you were yelling at your computers and TVs, wished you could be on stage with these destructive idiots.

I wanted to, as well, but I can’t, so I’ll just have to simulate it, here.


Thump vs Hillary vs Me, Virus-X, the Republic Commando (running for the Conservative Party).

Where They Stand on Economic Policy Issues

In the end, elections usually come back to the economy—to jobs, wages, taxes, imports and exports, the price of goods and the cost of an education. Differences over all these issues—from tax rates and immigration to globalization and the minimum wage—are particularly sharp this year between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Here’s a look at where the two candidates stand on the top economic issues.


Many Americans have grown anxious that the economy hasn’t lived up to its promise over the past 15 years of creating job growth that provides upward mobility and broadly shared prosperity. Instead, the nation has gone through two recessions marked by bubbles—one in the stock market and the other in housing—that were followed by recoveries in which economic growth returned but job growth lagged. Laying out a vision for how to restore widespread job and income gains is shaping up to be the top priority of the incoming president.


“If we do what we have to do correctly, we can create the biggest economic boom in this country since the New Deal when our vast infrastructure was first put into place. It’s a no-brainer. It’s so obvious that even the Democrats can figure it out. November 2015, in his book “Crippled America” »

Mr. Trump has eschewed the sunny optimism of past Republican presidents by warning that the nation faces an almost irreversible economic decline. He has published plans for large tax cuts, reducing regulation and renegotiating trade agreements. He has provided fewer specifics about how his plans to curb immigration and to slash imports would create new jobs.

Mr. Trump has promised a big boost in spending on defense and infrastructure while cutting the budgets for nondefense programs, though these include several areas such as veterans’ health care and border security, where Mr. Trump has promised more spending. He has also promised not to touch popular benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which account for a rising share of public spending and, as such, have been a ripe target of conservatives for decades.

(Caveat:  Thump flip-flops more than a fish out of water, so this position could actually have been contradicted many times, by the time you’re seeing this.)


“Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. And when you get ahead, America gets ahead. But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to make it strong again. July 13, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton has unveiled a raft of policy proposals detailing increased spending on everything from job training and community college education to broadband networks, infrastructure, and clean energy. She has backed efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, to overhaul immigration laws, and to boost women’s workforce participation by backing efforts to improve paid leave and access to child care.

She has also promoted using the tax code to provide breaks for companies that improve employee profit-sharing while raising taxes on upper-income Americans and taxing so-called carried interest earned by investors as regular income.

(Caveat:  Clinton is a congenital liar, so it’s quite possible that since her lips were moving when she said this, she could be lying about everything.)



“The country is an economic basket case.  I’m not going to bull crap, I’m not going to beat around the bush.  Both Clinton and her donor are big government liberals.  Thump is saying the destructive policies of far left president FDR – the so-called “New Deal” was beneficial to the economy.  Clinton wants to continue imposing this leftist caste system on the country, putting Americans into ‘classes’, and saying Big Government will come to the rescue and get the economy rolling.  Well, they’re both wrong.  Government doesn’t create jobs, it takes jobs away from the Private Sector:  the actual place where jobs originate from.  Burdensome, confiscatory, unconstitutional taxation and regulation are making America a hostile environment for starting a business, and that’s thanks to the poor fiscal policies of both the Republicans and the Slave Party – AKA:  the Democrats.  Whereas, once, America was the Land of Opportunity, it’s rapidly losing that, and the policies of both Clinton and Trump will hasten the complete loss of it, and the destruction of our once great economy.  It’s time to actually obey the Constitution, and stop invoking it when you think it’ll score you some points on TV.  Eliminate the income tax.  Stop unconstitutionally raiding the Treasury for unconstitutional bureaucracies, agencies, programs and feathering the nests of foreign countries.  Stop misusing the Commerce Clause as a weapon to impede commerce and destroy business.  Stop issuing by fiat, and wipe out all regulations and let the States handle their own business.  Stop letting Big Government drive the economy, and put business back in the hands of the People.”

Virus-X, the Republic Commando believes that returning the original constitutional model of taxation and letting the states run themselves is the best medicine for an ailing economy.  He’s unveiled plans to eliminate every single unconstitutional expenditure, including government agencies, to save the country trillions, as well as assist in paying off the national debt as quickly and efficiently as possible.  He wants to stop this rampant printing of money, and to actually reduce the amount of printed money by a small degree, to increase the value of American currency, and restore it to the world’s standard.

He wants to stop all federal government loans to colleges, in order to force them to take care of their own finances, and force some sanity back into their pricing, which is one of the chief roadblocks to people actually being able to go to college.

Virus-X believes that the best way to simplify the federal tax code is to basically eliminate the vast majority of it, force the government to live within it’s means and to only collect imposts, excises, and duties for sustenance.  No more direct taxation to the American citizen and businesses on the federal level, which means more money in the citizens’ pockets, and more money for business to expand, improve and hire more people.  To him, the best economic ‘stimulus’ is one created by the People, not the government.

OK, let’s move on.


The 2016 election has kicked off the rawest debate in decades over trade agreements, globalization and the impact of lower tariffs and more open borders on U.S. workers and their wages. Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton oppose the 12-nation Pacific trade deal, negotiated and promoted by the Obama administration, but they have also questioned the two-decade-old North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta.


trump change government

“Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.”

Mr. Trump has upended the Republican policy of recent decades by rejecting free trade and backing tariffs to protect American industry from what he calls unfair competition. Mr. Trump has sought to link Mrs. Clinton to the 1994 Nafta deal with Mexico and Canada that her husband signed and has challenged her to categorically rule out support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in any form.

His strong opposition to trade deals has led to clashes with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the biggest business lobby—and brought him closer to liberal economists and Democratic lawmakers on the issue. Still, some economists warn his threats of tariffs could hurt American industries that depend on international supply chains, and potentially kick off a trade war that dents economic growth.


“Donald doesn’t see the complexity. He wants to start a trade war with China. And I understand a lot of Americans have concerns about our trade agreements—I do too. But a trade war is something very different.” June 2 speech in San Diego »

In a campaign season replete with trade skepticism, Mrs. Clinton announced in October, before the text of the TPP was even released, that she wouldn’t support the Pacific trade agreement. As secretary of state she had previously touted the TPP as the “gold standard,” and Mr. Trump has speculated Mrs. Clinton could eventually sign the TPP in modified form if elected president.

In drafting the party’s policy platform in July, Democrats decided to eschew explicit opposition to TPP. Mrs. Clinton’s more nuanced approach to trade could win her some support from the business community and the more centrist voters who see the benefits of opening up to other economies. But she also risks alienating supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her Democratic rival who ran a campaign nearly as antithetical to trade agreements as Mr. Trump’s.

In a speech on Aug. 11, Mrs. Clinton offered one of her most pointed critiques of American trade policy and flatly stated that she would oppose the TPP. “I oppose it now. I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president,” she said.


“It’s ironic that Thump wants to talk about politicians driving business, then, in the next breath, talk about doing that very same thing with tariffs.  Let’s also not forget that it’s quite probable that the suit he’s got on his back was made in China – a nation that’s our enemy, both militarily and economically.  And Hillary Clinton?  More destructive, Big Government solutions that will do more harm, than good.  Like I said, it’s time to go back to the original parameters of constitutional taxation.  If businesses were saving billions in taxation to the federal government, they could afford to bring more business back to the US.  And, no, Trump, the federal government does not have the power or responsibility to force private business to work where it dictates for them to.  Minus a lot of unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations and taxes, it would become a lot more affordable to manufacture in the US.  And, like I said, business would have more money in it’s pockets, and private citizens would have a lot more money in their pockets to do things like, oh, maybe buy things from these corporations.  Then, when you extend a tax and regulations break that’s similar to foreign corporations, who knows?  Maybe you just might convince them that it could be cheaper in the long run, to leave the countries their at, and start doing more of their business, here, in the United States.”

Virus-X believes that if corporations weren’t paying so much in taxes and regulations, they might want to come back to the US, on their own.  He also believes that if similar benefits were offered to foreign companies, they might be convinced to leave and come to the US, where they would create more jobs, and contribute to national prosperity, as well as their own.  This doesn’t require destructive treaties like the TPP, but making simplified tax codes that benefit the country, corporations and the individual.  No Big Government intervention required, or desired.

seems legit



Tax policy divides the two parties like few other issues, in large part because it reveals candidates’ views on the appropriate size and scope of government. Under President Barack Obama, Congress permanently extended George W. Bush-era tax cuts for all but the highest earners, imposed new taxes on investment income and expanded tax credits for low-income families and college tuition. Yet the bipartisan goal of “tax reform” remains elusive because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how much money the government should collect and who should pay.


“My core beliefs are I want a major tax cut.” May 9 interview with The Wall Street Journal »

In September 2015, Mr. Trump proposed a plan to slash tax rates and push millions of households off the income tax rolls with a proposed tax cut that would be nearly triple the size of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. That plan would have reduced U.S. tax collections by more than $9 trillion over a decade.

Mr. Trump’s new plan, released in September 2016, keeps many of the same features as his original plan, including a 15% business tax rate and repeal of the estate tax. He added a deduction for child care costs, proposed a smaller increase in the standard deduction and said he would cap itemized deductions at $100,000 per individual. Mr. Trump would set the top individual tax rate at 33%, down from today’s 39.6% but above the 25% in his original plan.

The new plan would reduce revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade, before assuming increased revenue from economic growth, according to the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. Mr. Trump’s aides have offered a few clarifications after the plan’s release that may affect the cost. Some non-corporate businesses would face a second layer of taxation on dividends. And the campaign said that poor and working-class households who might face higher taxes under Mr. Trump’s plan could opt to stay in the current tax system.


“We need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay more of their fair share.”— Jan. 11 campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa

Mrs. Clinton offers a host of targeted tax policies, composed mostly of tax increases on high-income households and narrow incentives for businesses that share profits with their workers or have apprenticeship programs. She would also create new tax breaks for caregivers and out-of-pocket health-care costs.

She would increase capital gains rates on assets held between one and six years to encourage longer-term investing and she would impose tougher restrictions on companies seeking to move their addresses out of the country and cut their tax bills.

She would cap deductions for high-income people, impose a 30% minimum effective tax rate on households making at least $2 million a year and create a 4% surtax on income over $5 million. She would also increase estate taxes and apply the capital gains tax on appreciated assets given or left to heirs. Mrs. Clinton has also left a few gaps in her tax plan. She has pledged to use “business tax reform” to pay for $275 billion in infrastructure spending, but she hasn’t said how she would do that or whether she backs Mr. Obama’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate. She also has promised a middle-class tax cut but hasn’t yet offered specifics beyond saying she would expand the child tax credit.



“Both Thump and Hillary are rich.  I don’t begrudge that, certainly, but let’s be clear eyed.  Thump wouldn’t reveal his taxes, and now it’s looking like he hasn’t paid federal income tax for decades, and the Clintons, after lying about being poor, are telling other people to “pay their fair share”.  Like I’ve been saying, all along:  constitutional taxation.  And let’s stop with this “tax credit” crap.  You act like you’re giving people something.  No, what you’re doing is giving them their own money, and pretending you’re doing them a big favor.  Stop taking their money, like that, in the first place, for your re-distribution scemes, and let the People handle their own money.” 

Virus-X believes that since people are forced to live within their means, the federal government should, too.  That means no more income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc.  Just imposts, excises and duties.  What you buy, sell, import and export.  Not your income, and certainly not punishing your success by charging you more, the more money you make.  Taxation should be about maintenance fees for the country, not about making it hurt for people you’re jealous of, because they’re financially better off, than you are.  And it should not be about being a left-wing, populist demagogue, talking about robbing from the rich to give to the poor, just to get votes.



The U.S. by 2020 will begin to spend more on Medicare and Social Security than the programs collect in interest income and taxes. The two programs already account for a rising share of government spending—around 41% of federal outlays last year, up from 36% in 2011. These figures are set to rise over the next two decades due to the aging of the baby-boom generation and the resulting decline in the ratio of workers to retirees.


“We’re going to save your Social Security without killing it like so many people want to do, and your Medicare.” June 18 rally in Phoenix »

Mr. Trump has criticized proposals floated by Republican leaders to address looming across-the-board benefit cuts that will be triggered if Social Security exhausts Treasury account reserves by, for example, raising retirement ages or capping benefits for wealthier retirees. Instead, Mr. Trump has said that the program can eliminate waste and abuse to close the demographic-induced solvency gap, a proposal that independent experts say isn’t credible.


“I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security. We have a lot of women on Social Security, particularly widowed and single women who didn’t make a lot of money during their careers.” October 13, 2015, candidate debate in Las Vegas »

During the Democratic nomination battle, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders urged front-runner Hillary Clinton to support more generous benefits for retirees and to swear off any cuts, positions that have grown popular on the left. Mrs. Clinton has said she supports enhancing benefits for certain, lower-income retirees and has said she backs some sort of increase in taxes on top earners to pay for that and to extend solvency of the program.



“Sorry, but you’ve been duped.  This is a ponzi scheme, and it’s time someone had the guts to put an end to it.  Providing for peoples’ retirement is not the job of the federal government, unless you’re an FDR Fabian socialist, like the Clintons and their big money donor, Thump.  It’s time to cash everybody out, under a certain age, and let them find their own financial future.  People above a certain age can stay in – if they want – or cash out like everybody else, and put their money into things like Roth IRAs, Certificates of Deposit, invest in those corporations I’ve already mentioned, etc.  The government never does it as well as the Private Sector.  Like the great Lieutenant Colonel Allen West once said:

Allen West against welfare

Virus-X the Republic Commando knows that so-called “entitlement” programs are bankrupting the country to the tune of trillions, and that’s it’s high time to cut the cord. If States want to enact such socialist policies, that’s on them, but it’s not the constitutionally enumerated job of the federal government to do so.  Having the economically irresponsible federal government control retirement, in his opinion, is the opposite of freedom.



Budget deficits soared after the 2008 financial crisis because tax revenues plunged and the government ramped up stimulus spending. While the budget deficit last year fell to its lowest level since 2007, the federal debt held by the public has doubled over that period, to around 75% of gross domestic product. Under current law, this debt-to-GDP ratio will steadily climb higher as spending rises on programs that aren’t subject to annual appropriations, such as Social Security and Medicare. This matters because if the next president wants to approve new government spending programs or tax cuts, they’ll have a harder time doing it if they’re also committed to keeping the debt from rising even higher.


“We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt… I think we could do it fairly quickly… over a period of eight years.” March 31 interview with Washington Post »

Mr. Trump has made a number of sometimes contradictory statements on the public debt. In March, he said that unleashing stronger economic growth would allow the U.S. to begin paying off the national debt, something that no budget analysts deem possible right now. In subsequent interviews this spring, Mr. Trump said he might try to renegotiate the national debt. He reversed course days later in a May interview with The Wall Street Journal, where he said he wouldn’t do anything to alter the terms of that debt, which he called “absolutely sacred.”


“When my husband left the White House, we had a balanced budget and a surplus, and if we had stayed on a responsible fiscal path, we could’ve—had we chosen—paid off our entire national debt. December town hall in Dover, N.H. »

Mrs. Clinton repeatedly chided her rivals—first, Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and then Mr. Trump—for putting forward policy proposals that would exacerbate budget deficits. While she hasn’t outlined specific steps to balance budgets, she has for the most part ensured that new spending programs are paid for from a budgeting standpoint, usually through higher taxes on higher income households. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an organization that advocates for debt reduction, estimates that Mrs. Clinton’s spending and tax policies would essentially hold the national debt on the trajectory it faces under current law.



“Like I’ve been saying, if we’re not paying for things we shouldn’t be, federally, then we’ll have the money to make more serious inroads in paying off the national debt and killing the deficit.  Eliminating spending on unconstitutional programs – including “entitlement” programs – will save in the trillions, and allow us to really start paying off the debt.  Also, the achievement of energy independence and selling that surplus energy to friendly/allied countries will also allow the US to make serious and significant steps towards getting that monkey off our backs.”

Virus-X believes that it’s going to take more than tax and spend liberality to get the US out of debt, and that no program will succeed until federal money is spent responsibility.  The Constitution clearly states what can, and can’t, be purchased at the expense of taxpayer funds, and things like social programs, foreign aid, infanticide, etc. are not examples of things that taxpayer money from the Treasury can be used to fund.  It’s like plugging a hole in a sinking boat.  Until you do that, there’s very little chance of you being able to bail out the incoming water fast enough to avoid being sent to the bottom.  Neither Trump nor Clinton – both well-known and historic tax and spend liberals – have credible plans to ending the menace of the national debt.


So, as you see, it’s not hard to beat up on these two mental lightweights, if you have a functioning medulla.  Trump is not in it to win, really.  He’s a Clinton Manchurian candidate, and just there to keep Hillary credible.  If he somehow wins, he’ll be another Clinton puppet.  If he loses, he heads off into the sunset with the money he’s been pocketing.

The key to getting the US out of the economic mud it’s been mired in for almost 10 years is not more republicans, is not more of the Slave Party’s putrid politicians.  It’s Constitutional Conservatism.


I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.  If you don’t like it, tough noogies.


















~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on October 2, 2016.

2 Responses to “My Fellow Americans, 2016”

  1. Good entry

  2. Thank you, very much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: