This picture just doesn't seem Presidential to me...but I guess that really shouldn't be surprising.

“When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled ‘made in Germany;’ it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'”
                                             
                                                                  – An uncredited New York Times reporter covering Halford E. Luccock in an article published September 12, 1938.

There is a reason why members of the Armed Forces take an oath to "...protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."  We don't pledge allegiance to the flag; it is just a symbol.  We don't swear allegiance to the President, as they are just an office-holder (though Commander-in Chief).  We swear to defend the Law of the Land, and that includes defending it against a president or other government or elected official who would seek to subvert it, unlawfully.

Trump and his cronies see the flag as just another brand symbol, to be marketed for their own benefit.  Too many good people have lost their lives defending the principles that that flag is supposed to represent and because the few have manipulated events and used the armed forces as a tool in their personal power.  Gen Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, spent much of his career as the hired muscle for Big business and the likes of Trump.  He later spoke out about it, especially in his book, War Is A Racket.  What he said then is true today.

From Jason Furman and Lawrence H. Summers, Who's afraid of Budget Deficits? in Foreign Affairs (March/April issue):

«There is a widely held misconception that the deficit has risen primarily because government programs have grown more generous. Not so. Deficits have ballooned because a series of tax cuts have dramatically reduced government revenue below past projections and historical levels. The tax cuts passed by Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump totaled three percent of GDP -much more than the projected increases in entitlement spending over the next 30 years. Those cuts meant that in 2018, the federal government took in revenue equivalent to just 16 percent of GDP, the lowest level in half a century, except for a few brief periods in the aftermath of recessions. Without the Bush and Trump tax cuts (and the interest payments on the debt that went with them), last year’s federal budget would have come close to balancing. As things stand, however, the Congressional Budget Office projects that revenue over the next five years will continue to average less than 17 percent of GDP, a percentage point lower than under President Ronald Reagan.»

(emphasis mine).

This agrees with my leftward-tending politics, but I really had no idea that the tax cuts had such a big effect. It would be great if we could attribute the ongoing economic growth to the tax cuts, but (a) said growth started under Obama and went on for seven years, and (b) Canada -for one- had a parallel economic growth, and taxes there are significantly higher than in the U.S.

I look forward to the day a political discussion will be on how much tax we're willing to pay, what the money should be spent on, how much should government interfere with our lives, and so on and so forth. The shenanigans of the current administration are a regrettable distraction, enough to make me miss (egad!) George W. Bush.

It's almost as if..gasp... tax cuts on their own do not directly correlate with economic growth! What is this nonsense???

It's fairly common sense, too. If you give money back to people who already have a grotesquely massive sum of money that they could buy everything they could ever conceive of wanting many times over, there is no particular need or reason for that to impact their spending and inject it back into the economy. They can already buy anything they want, so what's the difference? Instead if you give money back to people who are struggling to get by or who are even comfortable but not wealthy, they could (and often do) spend it right away on something they need or want. I believe there are stats backing this up IIRC, but I don't have time to look it up.

If you give Bill Gates $10 Million back, what does he possibly care? He wouldn't even notice. I'll bet he makes and loses more than that randomly every time the market farts. Give me an extra $10,000 back?? Shoot, I have a house that needs painting and a fence that needs replacing that I would love to hire a local trades company to do. I hate painting.