Trump Serving Fast Food To Clemson Was Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

There have been lots and lots (and lots) of hot takes on President Trump serving fast food, which he paid for out of his own pocket, to the Clemson Tigers football team, which won the national championship (something not mentioned in the article.) Of course, Warmists gotta do Warmist, as we get Robert Gebelhoff in the Washington Post

Donald Trump’s fast-food presidency

President Trump couldn’t welcome the Clemson University football team Monday with food typically served at the White House, given that caterers there were furloughed under the partial government shutdown. So he did what many other Americans do when their options are limited: He ordered out.

The president celebrated the fast-food display — complete with mounds of hamburgers, fries, pizzas and, to be fair, some boxed salads — and, of course, boasted about paying for it himself. The reception, no doubt, was an attempt to make the president more relatable, but if anything, his cornucopia of greasy indulgence should serve as a symbol of his presidency.

Robert goes on to yammer about food deserts and nutrition and stuff, because people can’t have a day with some less than healthy food (fun fact: the majority of these fast foods have no MSG, as explained by my allergist. I’m big time allergic, to the point of going to the doctor or worse. Subway and Firehouse subs are a big no no for me. Processed meats) before diving into

But food isn’t the only aspect of life where Americans overvalue instant gratification and ignore the massive challenges looming on the horizon. The Trump administration embodies that mind-set.

Take climate change. Trump’s opponents advocate taking on some of the long-term costs associated with remedying global warming now, either by implementing some type of carbon tax or using taxpayer money to subsidize cleaner energy. Trump’s strategy is not merely to ignore the problem but to deny that it’s even happening. The short-term economic benefits of carbon-based energy are just too tantalizing for the president’s conservative base to give up, so he parades around talking about a “war on coal” and promising that coal jobs will reappear — as if the president has power to control the market forces that have cut into the coal industry.

Oh, and Robert dives into immigration and other stuff. All because of some fast food.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Trump Serving Fast Food To Clemson Was Bad For ‘Climate Change’ Or Something”

  1. Bill589 says:

    Science has me not worrying about my children having to deal with global warming.

    Science does have me worried about my children having to deal with the Trillions of dollars of debt we are leaving them.

  2. Jethro says:

    If we further cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations, increase defense spending, slash Social Security and Medicare, we can eliminate the debt!

    And the Trump Economic Miracle is filling the coffers so fast that the debt is shrinking!

    Ironically, for all the great news the deficit is expected to top $1 trillion in 2019.

    • Bill589 says:

      The socialist programs are hurting our kids bigly. They all eventually run out of other people’s money. Who knew? /s

      And to add to the debt because of ‘global warming’ would only hurt our kids.

  3. Kye says:

    For the one millionth time, corporations don’t pay taxes they pass them on to the consumer as a business expense. Just repeating the same erroneous crap is not an argument. It’s a sign of a mental problem. You sound silly.

    • Jethro says:

      One millionth time? You’ve contracted tRumpitis!

      Actually economists claim that corporate taxes end up being paid by the shareholders and to lesser extent, the workers.

      The right-wing claim that companies raise prices to cover tax expenses is just not true.

      Lying for the millionth time is a sign of a mental problem.

      • david7134 says:

        You are wrong, get an education.

        • Jethro says:


          You are never right.

          Much of what Con Men feel to be true, is not. Sad.

          Bruce Bartlett worked for Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Ron Paul and Jack Kemp.

          Probably most people assume that the corporate income tax is largely paid by consumers of its products or services. That is, they assume that although the tax is nominally levied on the corporation as a whole, in fact the burden of the tax is shifted onto customers in the form of higher prices.

          All economists reject that idea. They point out that prices are set by market forces and the suppliers of goods and services aren’t only C-corporations, which pay taxes on the corporate tax schedule, but also sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations that are taxed under the individual income tax. Other suppliers include foreign corporations and nonprofits.

          Therefore, corporations cannot raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax because they will be undercut by businesses to which the tax does not apply.

          The Treasury economists conclude that 82 percent of the corporate tax falls on capital and 18 percent on labor. This is very close to the methodology of the private Tax Policy Center, whose analyses are frequently cited in policy debates. It assumes that 80 percent of the corporate tax is borne by capital and 20 percent by labor.

          • david7134 says:

            Hey more stupid. The article does not apply.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Funny nignorant leaves out the concluding sentence of the article.

            People should be aware that even the best academic economists disagree on the basics of who actually pays the corporate tax.

            Guess nignorant didn’t read that far.

          • Jethro says:

            No sources, doug?

            Much of what Con Men believe to be true, isn’t.

            You base your life on fantasies.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      Please allow the nignorant angry little colored fella in st. louis to share what he knows feels about economics.
      Maybe he can quote that former Enron bookkeeper.

  4. Kye says:

    They point out that prices are set by market forces and the suppliers of goods and services aren’t only C-corporations, which pay taxes on the corporate tax schedule, but also sole proprietorship’s, partnerships and S-corporations that are taxed under the individual income tax.”

    That’s true only no corporation upon which you and your leftist buddies would “raise taxes” fall into these categories. You are generally referring to large public corporations like GM, are you not? Corporations any business must set their prices higher than their costs so regardless of what you citation states any business that has added expense has added cost.

    Shareholders (and if by that you are referring to the millions of average folks living off their dividends) may very well suffer by increased corporate taxes but seldom is a large corporation in a position to cut salaries on workers to compensate for draconian taxation.

    Quoting Bruce Bartlett who is actually a historian is bad enough but by quoting him you are agreeing with one of the “supply side” economics guys who worked for Reagan. I wasn’t aware you agreed with Supply Side. Anyway, Bartlett is wrong on this point as humans are apt to be. What’s next, a quote from Paul Krugman? He’s been wrong every time but once and they call him “expert”.

    • Jethro says:

      You are generally referring to large public corporations like GM, are you not?

      Don’t the tax laws apply to all?

      You’re doing that ignoramus thing again. Just because Mr. Bartlett may have been wrong about supply-side economics decades ago doesn’t mean all economists are wrong now about corporate taxes.

      In my opinion, it is time for supply-side economics as a distinctive school of thought to go peacefully into the night as an idea that once had validity and made a real contribution to improving economy policy, but which became increasingly divorced from that contribution as time went by and eventually found itself as a mere slogan without anything meaningful to say about current economic problems. To the extent that there was something right about supply side economics, that something has been fully incorporated into mainstream economics. To the extent that supply-side ideas have not been accepted, it is mainly because they are invalid.

      He blamed Bush in 2009 in ruining supply-side theory for everyone. Surely he would blame tRump today.

      Rightists feel corporate taxes are paid by consumers at the retail level, while professional economists determined approx 80% hits the shareholders (which is fair), and 20% are reductions in labor costs (not really fair).

      As Mr. Bartlett explained in this defense of supply-side economics in 2009, the issue was much more complex than just cutting taxes for the richest willy-nilly, an approach that nearly always increases federal deficits (as Mr. Reagan found out – even as the tax cuts stimulated the economy – the same as gov’t spending during recessions stimulates the economy). But eventually you need money to run the gov’t – you know, pay our bills, buy destroyers and aircraft, pay the troops, promote the general Welfare, etc. And that money comes from taxes. The question is, from whom do you take the money?

      If raising taxes is out of the question, and cutting taxes is the only approach allowed, what must be cut from federal spending to balance the budget? (If it needs to be balanced. Dick Cheney: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”)

      Defense, Social Security, Healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid) and interest on debt make up most of our federal spending. Which would you cut to get the 2019 projected deficit under $1 trillion? BTW – interest on the debt will climb once interest rates go up and with the expanding debt.

      Anyway, long story short, consumers do not pay corporate taxes, shareholders do. The working classes DO have to make up for the lost taxes unless debt piles up, you slash spending or you raise the top marginal rates. Since 1980, US economic policy has been to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working classes, who are really feeling the pinch.

      Working class conservatives are trading their and their families economic future in order to stop abortion and punish immigrants. Hope it’s worth it.

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        People should be aware that even the best academic economists disagree on the basics of who actually pays the corporate tax.

        Nignorant never seems to address this from the article he cited.

      • Jl says:

        “The working classes have to make up for the lost taxes”. How so just the working classes?

Pirate's Cove