GOP Tax Bill Set To Make Rich Richer At Everyone Else's Expense | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

Rachel Maddow reports on the extent of income inequality in the U.S. as the largess of the American economy has not trickled down, and shows how the Republican tax bill further enriches the already wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, MSNBC offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Connect with MSNBC Online

GOP Tax Bill Set To Make Rich Richer At Everyone Else's Expense | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC

[DKDexter]

"93% of Americans are smart." A total of about 20 - 25% of the population voted for Trump; how many were smart?

[jayhulrs]

414 billion. But we can't afford the children's health insurance program

[jessetorres]

Hypocrisy: “The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.” Synonym: Republican politicians who make promises to the poor and middle class to get into power, but then take actions that contradict those promises and exploit the system of government to remain in power or benefit themselves personally.

[thejuliez]

If I'm rich and I get more money my first thought it not "how can I give more to my employees?" It's more like I'm gonna reward myself and buy a jet or something.

[threekat]

the level of greed shown by this tax bill is truly horrific

[Msniquestarpg]

Trump should have had to release his taxes before he could sign a tax bill. This is ridiculous!!!

[warpo]

I thank the FSM every day that I'm NOT an American.

[AzeriN]

Rachel, we love You! Please keep the good work up

[holysmoke]

Tax cuts, stock market, border security, supreme court what a yr of winning and he's just getting

[urshurakdieohnekanal]

Congrats US, you officially have the same wealth-distribution as India (no offence to India intended, just facts). And soon you will have the same slums - and fatality rate because health insurance will be too expensive for the average American.

[jaguarrose]

Thank you Rachel! This is the type of reporting we need to see from you more often.

[SuperRtrtrtr]

Everyone in the US who is working poor should not show up for work, ever. Watch what happens.

[maxdoubt]

This is class warfare. Change will only come from below. We need to take to the streets.

[chrisbarker]

That Graph says it all. If you have worked at all in the past 30 years you already know this graph. Because we have lived it.

[jessetorres]

Here's (in my opinion) the best argument against the Republican claim of the benefits of Trickle-Down economics/taking away cuts from the poor for the already wealthy. Say there are 2 guys-a CEO and an average worker. The average worker has been saving for 3 years to buy a new car, while his CEO boss can afford to buy say 3 new cars a year (but obviously he doesn't because he doesn't need to). If the government enacts a tax break for wealthy CEOs/increases taxes on the middle-class, the worker will have to save more/longer before he can buy the new car he needs to drive to his job. However, just because the CEO has more money, is he going to spend it on say another new car? No. Republicans argue that if the already wealthy receive more money they will distribute it down to the workers later, but in this instance the CEO doesn't need to buy a new car so he could invest in the manufacturing stocks of the car company. And even if the employee got a slight pay raise, if his taxes went up the raise will needed to cover those, and if the stocks went up on the car company then their car prices could potentially go up as well. Now, if the government just barely cut the average worker's taxes/provided more to welfare programs he relies on and did little increases on the CEOs taxes, the worker could finally have enough for the new car, the CEO could contribute more to the local economy, and the manufacturing company would still see overall increases.

There's plenty of examples like this, but ultimately my argument is that from the 1930s to the late 1970s, the U.S. was basically a Trickle-Up economy where we benefited the bottom 25%-50% through various welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicare, and Food Stamps,  and the economy grew making us the wealthiest country in the world because when the poor get more money they will spend it. However, when we are a Trickle-Down economy that benefits the top 1%-10% the most, the poor spend less and save very little, while the already wealthy rarely contribute to the economy beyond their own business interests (there are examples that prove me wrong but very few), and the economy grows much less or even goes into recession. It has been this way under Republican Presidents/Congresses since 1980 yet they keep doing it and their voters keep believing it. And now we are in a position where 1/3-1/2 of the country would rather have corporate/corrupt Republicans than any Democrat despite how the overwhelming majority of Republicans don't seem to care about average voters while Democrats (with the excepts of the corporate 1s) do care about their voters/average workers more than CEOs and know they could spend/contribute more to the economy than CEOs do in the long run.

[pittwaterplayground]

Actually, I think Americans are very naive. That’s how Trump got where he is.

[timm]

These guys really get roughly 193, 000 back each year on tax returns alone? Where I live, you can buy some of the nicest houses in your choice of multiple towns and have enough left over to buy a pretty decent new car all in cash. just let that sink in for a second.

[jessetorres]

I'm going to make a prediction right here, right now. After the mid-term elections in 2018, I want any1 who has read this come back here and prove me either right or wrong. In 2010, thanks mostly to the Tea-Party movement, the Republicans won 63 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate. This was a significant loss for Democrats, especially considering that they had lost a Senate seat in Blue State Massachusetts after a special election there (Ted Kennedy died). Regardless of how you felt about him/his decisions, President Obama worked hard for the bailouts and ObamaCare in his 1st 2 years but his Party lost big time despite these successes, and in part due to the opposition against him despite having decent approval ratings. After this  special election in Red State Alabama where a Democrat narrowly won, I think history is about to repeat itself with a series of Democrat winnings in 2018's midterms. Like 2010, there's a huge opposition/resistance movement against President Trump/corrupt Republican politicians who don't care about working/middle-class Americans who felt they were played back in 2016. However, unlike in 2010, President Trump has no real legislative accomplishments to brag to his voters/the Republicans' policies are proven to be hurtful for average Americans (unlike the lies about Obama's policies). All that said here's my predication: Come the 2018 midterms, best case scenario for Republicans-they only loose about 40 seats, best case scenario for Democrats-they gain anywhere from 70-85 seats, but my prediction Democrats win about 60 seats (middle ground). However, this will work only if the Democrats get strong/better messaging out there beyond just being against President Trump, the Republicans continue to fail to pass anything, Donald Trump continues to divide people on Twitter and fails to meet his campaign promises, and more Progressives have a fighting chance on the Democratic side. What do you guys think?

[peoplearesaying]

I saw this coming back in 2016. Why would anyone go through all the hassle of dividing the country?

[skywriting]

I'm watching this from outside america. I am gob smacked that there hasn't been a major revolt against the Trump administration.