Written by Chris Dahl

Monday, 27 June 2016

image for Trump: "Only Rich People Should Be Allowed To Play Golf"

"Only rich people should be allowed to play golf," said Donald trump, real-estate magnate, tycoon, impresario of the rich, international icon and now - of course - political contender for the presidency of our great country.

More specifically, he is contending to become commander-in-chief and the political face of the country he wants to "make great again," to paraphrase Mr. Trump.

Although he has remained elusive about how exactly he plans on making this country "great" again, or even how he defines the term "great," or what exactly constitutes "greatness" in his eyes, the plans that have been revealed are certainly ambitious.

Trump wants to build an actual "brick and mortar" wall (my emphasis) along the 1993.4 mile border between Mexico and Texas. In terms of economic stimulus, that would certainly be a boon to the construction industry in that region.

I'm sure "the man who has experience beating other countries" will figure out how to subsidize the loss of the approximately 400,000 undocumented migrant construction workers and offset the subsequent spike in pay that companies who bid for the job will have to absorb, no doubt.

With his normal laser-like precision, Trump has already diagnosed at least part of the problem with this migrant worker population, and has seen why they are unnecessary. That's the grandeur of his vision. They do not belong in this country with all the rest of us hard-working citizens, since they are here for a free ride.

In fact, they are cheap knock-offs of the real thing: "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists."

So the wall Trump plans to build will be more than just a social safety-net, keeping out such hard-working riff-raff, and not just an economic safeguard that will secure jobs for our native American workers, but it will also be a moral beacon for all other countries to admire, saying something like, "This is the new, improved, great America and we love our justice, our nuclear families, our wives and children."

And Trump certainly does love and gush over his children, as so many fathers dote on their brood: "I don't think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."

Who can blame him for being so enthusiastic about everything from his family to his country when he has so much to enjoy? After all, this is a man who single-handedly built Trump Tower in the heart of New York City, founded his own flourishing university and has been the driving force behind a string of golf courses from the Northeast, to Florida, to the rich and cozy confines of Dubai in the Middle East. (Let's all hope ISIS doesn't golf.)

Yet, while he is certainly part of the famed 1% clique of multi-millionaires, if not billionaires, Trump certainly does seem to have a grassroots connection with the common man on the streets, the kind of people he claims will benefit most from "making America great again."

He is not afraid to match up his expensive business-man suits with a run-of-the-mill baseball cap to show his connection with those constituents. The success of his political candidacy so far has ridden on the back of the common man, the one who does not put on airs and assume that he is part of an elite and privileged ruling class, such as the likes of Bernie Sanders perhaps, with all of his ideas and his haughty political experience and snobbish appeals to his days in actual politics creating legislation.

Trump has no time for that.

While the likes of Sanders were cloistered away in the sterile confines of the halls of Congress, Trump was out in the world, gaining real-life experience in such things as overseas trade, casinos, universities, real estate and, of course, golf courses. Trump, no demagogue, is quite thankful for the salt-of-the-earth supporters he has in such morally grounded states such as Nevada. In fact, he acted the role of caring father with these simple folks who see this man as their best hope for a bright future in this country: "We won with the poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," he said to Nevada voters.

More than anything perhaps, Trump embodies the ferocity that has long been a staple of the American character, something perhaps he has sensed that we have lost much of that killer instinct that has led us to military victories against such imposing foes as the Afghanis, the Iraqis and the Iranian people to name just a few. He, simply as an icon alone, would be the catalyst to the redemption of these American people.

On this topic, Trump quoted another man who rejuvenated another once-great civilization, the great Benito Mussolini who single-handedly resurrected the Italian people right before World War II (and was later left dangling from the end of a rope by an angry Italian mob for some misguided reason): "It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep."

A vote for Donald Trump is a vote for more than economic just inspiration; it is a vote for the raw, powerful Spirit of America (and Benito Mussolini actually).

For a man who has spent his life with his nose to the proverbial grindstone, the state of many Americans who do not wish to pitch in their fair share to "make America great again" must be irksome, to say the least. Think of the figure Trump has cut: hard-working, honest to a fault, morally grounded, dedicated to his family and loved ones, and, most of all, imbued with only the highest spiritual values.

For him to see anything less than the same kind of dedication to "greatness" out of his fellow Americans is surely unacceptable.

This lack of effort is nowhere more apparent than in the level of poverty in this "great" land of his, as well as the number of welfare recipients and the swelling number of those who can't seem to figure out some way of feeding themselves and their families.

The frustration must be compounded in Trump since he has seen his fair share of hard times. It is not as if he had his fortune handed to him. In fact, he had to work very hard after his father gave him a "small loan" of one million dollars, all of which he had to pay back "with interest."

It is obvious where his disdain for people who accept financial hand-outs comes from, since nothing was just handed to him. Trump made his sizable fortune through hard-work and determination; like every other blue-collar worker, he punched the clock, filled his boots as the saying goes and toiled away: "I made it the old-fashioned way. It's real estate. You know; it's real estate."

Some question the business decisions he has made, claiming that somehow the four bankruptcies he has filed is a reflection on his business acumen or his personal character, but in response to this criticism Trump might spout this wise, old adage, "If you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs."

Other critics, with their fancy book-learning and degrees in economics, claim that a simple investment in the stock market with his initial million dollars would have yielded 20 billion for Trump. What they don't seem to understand, however, is that it's not all about the money for the likes of Donald J. Trump.

There are more transcendent goals, like building a "great" building in a "great" country for the "great" American people who can turn up their sleeves and work like he did to construct a "great" nation, brick by brick, alongside other citizens, especially those poorly educated types to whom he owes such a

Perhaps this will be the greatest challenge to the Republican nominee when he inevitably takes the throne of the United States of America, this problem of the wretched, if you will: the hungry, the tired, those fleeing other countries who yearn to breathe free at the expense of real Americans, the refuse who jump the borders to take our jobs, the tired and the homeless. How will he shut the front light off, slam the golden door and say, "Sorry, no room at the inn. We have just enough for us."

A look at the numbers involved shows that the heir-apparent to the throne will have hands full when he has to tackle this problem. He will be in charge of a kingdom in which there are well over 300 million people.

Of those people, approximately 15% are in the poverty zone (over 45 million), 21% of children under 18 years of age were in poverty (over 15 million), almost 5 % of seniors over 65 years old were in poverty as well (about ten percent). Another 48.1 million Americans lived in "food insecure households" where hunger is an ominous threat, including 32.8 million adults and 15.3 million children.

Households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 19 percent compared to 12 percent, as they have to bear the obvious burden of that superfluous child population, which, to be quite pragmatic, does not produce labor or create products to ameliorate the situation.

These children are heartless consumers of resources. Households that had higher rates of "food insecurity" than the national average included households with children (19%), especially households with children headed by single women (35%) or single men (22%), Black non-Hispanic households (26%) and Hispanic households (22%).

Aside from this problem of food scarcity, or "food insecurity" as the liberals with their political correctness like to put it, there is the subsequent problem of this same population expecting financial handouts without reciprocating with anything tangible for this country that Trump is trying to make "great." This is the problem of welfare.

A quick view of recent statistics will demonstrate the magnitude of the problem facing our next leader. This brief purview will also show the unrequited financial drain it puts on our society, taking millions of dollars out of the hands of the true builders of this country, such as Mr. Trump, and redistributes them to those who claim to have insecurities about food.

The national average, to view one startling statistic, is 1,000 dollars per welfare recipient per month in benefits - without having built a tower, opened a university, sold real estate or constructed a golf course. The irony inherent in the welfare system continues when one looks at the fact that 39 states pay more in welfare to its recipients than if that person were to work an 8-dollar an hour job, roughly the minimum wage in states such as Florida, and 6 states pay more than a 12-dollar an hour job. The true infamy of this system is that 8 states pay more than the average salary of a classroom teacher.

The contradictions and the blatantly unfair nature of this welfare-poverty-hunger situation is a horror-show to say the least. It will take the likes of Donald Trump to correct this massive injustice. It will take someone with his business savvy, someone who has seen the pitfalls of bankruptcy and failed businesses; someone who has overseen some of the greatest construction projects of our time; someone soaked in the pragmatism necessary to accomplish such a lofty goal, or as Trump himself states: "When somebody challenges you, fight back. Be brutal, be tough."

Modest as it may be, and presumptuous as it may be to propose such a thing to such an accomplished man as Trump, here is a proposal that requires little more than a reallocation of resources and a bit of energy, if not a strong dose of aggressive thinking. In other words, this is right up Trump's alley.

Trump knows that currently, as well as previously, the politicians of this country have been outwitted by those of such countries as Mexico to our south, and that this has become a financial burden on the country: "Our politicians are stupid. And the Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don't want to pay for them. They don't want to take care of them. Why should they when the stupid leaders of the United States will do it for them?"

It is fair to assume then, that Trump would apply this same sort of insight, keen intelligence and practical action in solving this financial problem.

How is this done? It is a simple answer that the likes of Trump must certainly have in mind: put them to work. After all, to quote an old German adage, "Arbeit Macht Frei" (which translates to "work will set you free"). Now the question is how this gets accomplished.

It may seem tricky to take over 110,000,000 welfare recipients in this country, 41,7000,000 food stamp recipients and over 10,000,000 people who are on unemployment insurance and simply hand them jobs. There is, however, a solution.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has already been gracious enough to set up 3,800 camps that currently have no population as of yet. It is estimated that they can hold approximately 100,000 people each, which equals out to approximately to housing capability for 380,000,000 workers. This is more than enough for the entire population of America if this program turns out to be a success. There will be room for all of us.

Simply commandeer local and state railway systems (since Ronald Reagan federalized them in the 1980's this won't be q problem) to relocate these populations that receive welfare, food stamps and/or who are unemployed or are experiencing "food insecurity" to these camps. Once there, these people will be given housing (dependent upon space and numbers of people relocated) and food (to be discussed later).

Their general contribution will be to replace the lost blue-collar working class that for so long had been the backbone of this country's economy, but had out-priced itself through union collective bargaining and greedy self-interests such as cost-of-living increases, medical benefits, retirement packages and social security.

This population numbering 161,700,000 will, instead of draining the economy and financial resources of the government to the tune of 1,000 dollars a month each on average, will supply virtually free production labor for major companies. That is billions of dollars of savings that are now at the behest of the government.

Moreover, each major company will "sponsor" its individual camps (or camps) by supplying the food and maintenance of this workforce. This will be a boon to the working class of America because all those jobs that were once overseas will now be relocated back here to American soil; moreover, they will be done by the American worker who, like Trump himself, knows quality work and how it should be done.

The economy will boom and the coffers will swell. As the profit margins of these major companies increase by leaps and bounds, they inevitably will re-invest into the economy and infrastructure of this country, as Donald Trump as always has, and this nation will be one step closer to being "great" again.

The only drawback to selling this idea to major companies such as Dow, Monsanto, Pfizer and the likes is that the long-term upkeep of the human-worker population can be a potentially immense draw on their financial resources. The physical structures of the camps and the machines virtually pay for themselves with the increase in profits that will ensue from this essentially free labor.

The human element, however, has to be monitored. One of the frailest varieties of animals in the wild, humans get sick and require care, they reproduce prolifically and they require food. All of these things are very expensive and would detract from the selling power of the camps to these major businesses.

Suffice to say, even Donald Trump himself may have troubles selling one of these camps off with all the human foibles involved. In order for this concept to work, these problems must be addressed.

To overtly deny a human being the right to the physical act of sex would certainly create a sentiment of revolt. Wouldn't you feel this way? On the other hand, reproduction is counter-intuitive to the concept being presented to these major buyers in terms of cost, and it is also counter-productive to the design of the program in general, which is to minimize the negative financial impact of these people on national holdings. So simply outlawing carnal relations is not an option; in fact, allowing and even promoting promiscuity would be an advantage in terms of raising the morale of these baser types who enjoy the more primitive pleasures.

The trick is not to allow them to reproduce. Experiments in the sterilization of certain populations have been attempted over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries with varying success. They often prove very unpopular among the liberal-minded types who believe everyone has a right to reproduce no matter what the situation. Of course, the outgrowth of that thinking allows for unrestrained copulation and reproduction, and, worst of all, creates the very population that ends up in camps such as we are discussing. So, a more covert method must be used.

Most of the major companies that will be courted for the financial backing of these camps will be active in manufacturing of some sort. Thus, there will be by-products of their manufacturing processes. Most likely, these by-products will be toxic. Thus, the liberals in the EPA will charge outrageous - if not unreasonable - rates to dispose of these toxins in an "environmentally friendly way" to lower our "carbon footprint," whatever that is. These toxins, however, can be useful and recycled, if you will.

A company like Arco that manufactures aluminum creates a great deal of run-off fluoride. Flouride creates stupidity, cancer, a general malaise and ultimately sterility in humans. When put in the water, especially under the guise of being healthful for the teeth let's say, the workers will welcome it - far from protesting.

Meanwhile, they are being sterilized and sickened unto death by this toxic substance. An ancillary benefit of this general state of sickness that will befall the camps will be that the major drug companies can test various drugs and procedures on these ailing workers in the name of their health interests.

Ultimately, these medical systems that are perfected in the camps can be applied to the general population, and at a profit no less.

Finally there are two interrelated problems: food rations and the longevity of the working class. Both pose serious financial problems for the companies who are attempting to maximize their profits and build their "bottom lines." For this, a return to our collective roots in Europe from which all Native Americans like Donald Trump hail, is necessary to find the solution. Specifically, we must turn to Germany.

Doctor of Medicine, Ignatius G. Farben, called "Iggy" by his closest friends, came up with a solution to this very pressing problem in the 1940's. After studying the problem, Farben found that the average-sized male of approximately 5'10" tall and weighing around 180 pounds needed over 3,800 calories in order to engage in strenuous activity and to still maintain a robust health.

He came up with a very strict regime whereby a worker of this basic, average size was to be fed approximately 500 calories a day (under 15% of the necessary caloric intake).

While working at maximum effort for upwards of 11 hours a day, this worker would be in a nutritional deficit each week.

This brilliant doctor found that each worker in this demographic lost on average 6 to 9 pounds per week.

Anyone who deviated from this average suffered even worse.

Women are generally smaller in stature, so they wasted away more quickly. Heavier individuals suffered greater health problems due to the various shocks to their systems after years of gluttony and sloth - a sort of retribution for their indulgences in at least a couple of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The average prisoner lasted no more than three months, with rare exceptions. The outcomes of his findings were astonishing. In layman terms, Farben was able to quantify a number of calories that kept productivity at a constant while productivity was maximized if not increased. Along the way he was able to lower food-cost overhead and the price-tag of maintaining the human population. It was quite popular in Germany, Poland, Austria and parts of Italy for many years.

Those negative aspects being addressed, the advantage of this solution to the problem of the welfare-unemployment-food-stamp-hunger state is obviously the path to tread if Donald Trump is to "make America great again," meaning that he will bring back all the great traditions that this country once embodied.

Production, profit, material gain and building great things, to paraphrase the man himself, are the traditional values of this country. Trump actually sees his favorite sport of golf as a metaphor for him and his stalwart values: "It's like in golf. A lot of people - I don't want this to sound trivial - but a lot of people are switching to these really long putters, very unattractive. It's weird. You see these great players with these really long putters, because they can't sink three-footers anymore. And, I hate it. I am a traditionalist. I have so many fabulous friends who happen to be gay, but I am a traditionalist," which means that once something is "great," it is always "great," like this country. Something that has always been a certain way can't really change or disappear, although sometimes it may be forgotten or pushed away."

Trump wants us to know that, and he's willing to put in the work. Yes, it may take a few tweaks here and there, but the potential is there for the greatness to shine through yet again.

Still, Trump, in all his humility understands that there is a long road ahead of him and that if he is not - somehow, some god-awful way -handed the scepter and donned with the crown (pun intended) he will ride off with his values in tow and know that he fought the good, honest, fair fight: "I don't think I'm going to lose, but if I do, I don't think you're ever going to see me again, folks. I think I'll go to Turnberry and play golf or something."

For the sake of the country, the world and the future of us all, the fates will hopefully smile on this modest man of means from Gotham and let him lead us back to the splendor that was once ours as a whole. If not, Trump will be seen on some golf course, gracious and humble in defeat as he has always been in victory, because, to quote him one last time, only rich people should be allowed to play golf.

The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious.

Do you dream of being a comedy news writer? Click here to be a writer!





Mailing List

Get Spoof News in your email inbox!

Go to top
65 readers are online right now!
Globey, The Spoof's mascot

We use cookies to give you the best experience, this includes cookies from third party websites and advertisers.

Continue ? Find out more