"Today, and I'm very strongly against tax increases"
About this Quote
The first thing to notice is how aggressively ordinary this sounds. “Today” narrows the frame to the immediate news cycle, not a governing philosophy. It’s a temporal escape hatch: if conditions change tomorrow, the statement can, too. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature of Trump’s rhetorical style, which often treats policy as a posture calibrated to the moment rather than a commitment anchored in details.
“I’m very strongly against” is doing heavy lifting. The redundancy (“very” plus “strongly”) substitutes intensity for argument, signaling conviction without specifying tradeoffs. It’s the language of branding: you’re meant to feel the firmness of the stance more than you’re meant to understand its mechanics. The line doesn’t distinguish between types of taxes, targets, or purposes. No income bracket, no corporate carve-out, no context of deficits, infrastructure, or social spending. That vagueness widens the audience; almost anyone can project their preferred anti-tax story onto it.
The subtext is coalition management. “Tax increases” is a reliable tripwire for donors, business interests, and a broad swath of voters primed to equate taxation with government overreach. By foregrounding opposition, Trump reassures the business-friendly wing while speaking in populist shorthand. It’s also a preemptive shield: if asked to pay for something expensive, he can pivot to growth, cuts, or “waste” without owning the arithmetic.
Context matters: as a businessman-turned-politician, Trump’s credibility with many supporters is tied to the idea of dealmaking and wealth creation. This sentence performs that identity. It’s less a policy plank than a signal flare: I’m on your side, and I’m not here to ask you to pay.
“I’m very strongly against” is doing heavy lifting. The redundancy (“very” plus “strongly”) substitutes intensity for argument, signaling conviction without specifying tradeoffs. It’s the language of branding: you’re meant to feel the firmness of the stance more than you’re meant to understand its mechanics. The line doesn’t distinguish between types of taxes, targets, or purposes. No income bracket, no corporate carve-out, no context of deficits, infrastructure, or social spending. That vagueness widens the audience; almost anyone can project their preferred anti-tax story onto it.
The subtext is coalition management. “Tax increases” is a reliable tripwire for donors, business interests, and a broad swath of voters primed to equate taxation with government overreach. By foregrounding opposition, Trump reassures the business-friendly wing while speaking in populist shorthand. It’s also a preemptive shield: if asked to pay for something expensive, he can pivot to growth, cuts, or “waste” without owning the arithmetic.
Context matters: as a businessman-turned-politician, Trump’s credibility with many supporters is tied to the idea of dealmaking and wealth creation. This sentence performs that identity. It’s less a policy plank than a signal flare: I’m on your side, and I’m not here to ask you to pay.
Quote Details
| Topic | Money |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Donald
Add to List
