Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
There are so many things deliberately broken in our appropriations process. I wonder if some of the constant brinkmanship where it seems we go from calamity to calamity in the National government is at least in part to prevent the Electorate for having clarity about how much of the nation's wealth flows to the beltway and then corruptly into the pockets of those related to and in some kind of associative relationship with those within the beltway.Yup. Reid thought that was a rather clever move on his part and it has destroyed any semblance of budget discipline.The King of Debt, aka the Breaker of Deals, just signed a bill approving $1.1Trillion in deficit spending for FY2020. It's unseemly for Trumpkins to pretend they care about fiscal conservatism.
Yep, they had to deal with the commies in the house, go figure. Perhaps the commies in the house should have done their duty and passed the budget bills.
.
That's just for FY 2020. There was also more than $1.1T in deficit spending for FY2019, when Repubs held both Houses of Congress. I guess the Repubs and the Freedom Caucus were commies then, too.
The fact is the budget hasn't been passed using regular order since 2009, that's no way to run the government.
.
When Ryan was Speaker, and the GOP held the Presidency and the Senate, were spending bills passed by regular order, or were continuing resolutions used, continuing Reid's practices even after he was gone?
As far as I know the only spending bill passed by regular order has been the NDAA, that's happened a few times. There are supposed to be 12 bills annually...
Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
There are so many things deliberately broken in our appropriations process. I wonder if some of the constant brinkmanship where it seems we go from calamity to calamity in the National government is at least in part to prevent the Electorate for having clarity about how much of the nation's wealth flows to the beltway and then corruptly into the pockets of those related to and in some kind of associative relationship with those within the beltway.Yup. Reid thought that was a rather clever move on his part and it has destroyed any semblance of budget discipline.Yep, they had to deal with the commies in the house, go figure. Perhaps the commies in the house should have done their duty and passed the budget bills.
.
That's just for FY 2020. There was also more than $1.1T in deficit spending for FY2019, when Repubs held both Houses of Congress. I guess the Repubs and the Freedom Caucus were commies then, too.
The fact is the budget hasn't been passed using regular order since 2009, that's no way to run the government.
.
When Ryan was Speaker, and the GOP held the Presidency and the Senate, were spending bills passed by regular order, or were continuing resolutions used, continuing Reid's practices even after he was gone?
As far as I know the only spending bill passed by regular order has been the NDAA, that's happened a few times. There are supposed to be 12 bills annually...
If we reach a consensus that we simply cannot get Congress to act according to our will we may have to consider some alternatives, for example, a Constitutional Amendment providing that the Majority of the State Legislatures passing an identical bill can put it on the President's desk for signature into law, and on the agreement of 2/3rds of the State Legislatures, override a veto.
Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
Yeah, absolutely. Of course no billionaire is going to do that anyway. They'll simply move their company outside of the country. France tried this already, and the country started hemorrhaging wealthy at such a massive rate, that they had to repeal the tax before they faced an economic catastrophe.
If people simply applied their rules to themselves, none of these policies would ever been seriously considered.
If you owned a $200,000 house, and they put a 10% tax on wealth, forcing you to pay $20,000 a year, just in additional taxes on top of all your other taxes, what would you do?
And keep in mind, every year as your house increases in value, that tax is going to go up every single year... whether your income does or not.
What would you do?
You would move. Canada has some great places to live. Where you can buy a $200K house, and pay just your normal property tax.
That's what happened in France. And anywhere with a wealth tax. No one would work hard, to buy assets, only to get nailed with taxes on investments they made with money they already paid taxes on.
It's insane.
There are so many things deliberately broken in our appropriations process. I wonder if some of the constant brinkmanship where it seems we go from calamity to calamity in the National government is at least in part to prevent the Electorate for having clarity about how much of the nation's wealth flows to the beltway and then corruptly into the pockets of those related to and in some kind of associative relationship with those within the beltway.
Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
Yeah, absolutely. Of course no billionaire is going to do that anyway. They'll simply move their company outside of the country. France tried this already, and the country started hemorrhaging wealthy at such a massive rate, that they had to repeal the tax before they faced an economic catastrophe.
If people simply applied their rules to themselves, none of these policies would ever been seriously considered.
If you owned a $200,000 house, and they put a 10% tax on wealth, forcing you to pay $20,000 a year, just in additional taxes on top of all your other taxes, what would you do?
And keep in mind, every year as your house increases in value, that tax is going to go up every single year... whether your income does or not.
What would you do?
You would move. Canada has some great places to live. Where you can buy a $200K house, and pay just your normal property tax.
That's what happened in France. And anywhere with a wealth tax. No one would work hard, to buy assets, only to get nailed with taxes on investments they made with money they already paid taxes on.
It's insane.
Even she knows that. The problem is the sheep don't.
So when they run out of rich people to tax, we would be stuck with yet another failed social program that we can't get out of. Then what?
I don't think she's ever going to get to the WH, much less get this through Congress. She's a Senator for goodness sake, she can't get a Liberal Congress person to introduce a bill for a wealth tax now while she's in a position to try to push it through the Senate? It's class warfare politics, not a serious policy proposal.Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income...
Yes, so a person with a high marginal tax rate in a high tax state would have to sell off over twice what he needs to pay the tax, and all these assets coming on the market to pay the taxes would drive down the price of the assets, likely requiring a 2-1 ratio or more to meet the tax.... You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets...
Fiscally speaking Ray, we're in agreement on Warren. She is out there. She will not be the candidate of the Democrats. I have similar feeling about Bernie.Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
Fiscally speaking Ray, we're in agreement on Warren. She is out there. She will not be the candidate of the Democrats. I have similar feeling about Bernie.Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
Well you won't like this. I know you are a Trump supporter. You know I am not. Honestly, I figure I will probably be voting for Joe, Amy or Pete. They are the more moderate choices. I couldn't support him or Hill last time, because I think the job requires character and integrity. Neither had any and still don't.Fiscally speaking Ray, we're in agreement on Warren. She is out there. She will not be the candidate of the Democrats. I have similar feeling about Bernie.Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
What's even more frightening is, if she's not the candidate, who will be?
It really doesn't matter who loses to Trump.We
Well you won't like this. I know you are a Trump supporter. You know I am not. Honestly, I figure I will probably be voting for Joe, Amy or Pete. They are the more moderate choices. I couldn't support him or Hill last time, because I think the job requires character and integrity. Neither had any and still don't.Fiscally speaking Ray, we're in agreement on Warren. She is out there. She will not be the candidate of the Democrats. I have similar feeling about Bernie.Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
In a November interview with National Education Association president Lily Eskelsen García, the Massachusetts senator said, "The way I see it, there's always, c'mon, there's always money. It's there. Are we going to spend the money on defense or are we going to spend the money on our children?"....... wut....
This is like talking to a teenager.... 'C'mon!' There's always money! It's there!.......
This is how we have people with $200,000 in student loans, for a degree in social work, earning $30,000 a year.
How can anyone take Warren seriously after she said this? What adult, can rationally consider voting for this chick?
As one article I wrote pointed out, most of the wealth people have is not liquid. It's usually invested in solid things.
In other words, she wants to tax wealth--not just income. You pay for what you own every year. So let's say a billionaire is worth 2 billion. In order for him to pay the tax, he must sell his assets. So on top of the tax he is selling his assets for, he must also pay the tax for selling the assets.
Even if it's market assets, it could be taxed as high as 20%. So add that to the wealth tax, then include local taxes such as state, city and county, what her plan does is eventually make billionaires broke.
She would eliminate all billionaires in the US in just a matter of a couple of years. However, assets are also businesses. So the businesses would have to be sold as well to pay this wealth tax. So when the government confiscates all the wealth, who will pay for these goodies when there is nobody left to tax?
Well, you can't tax the middle-class with a crashing stock market and businesses closing like wildfire.
What's even more frightening is, if she's not the candidate, who will be?
Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
I wouldn't sweat it. Warren's never going to be President. But if she wants to introduce this bill into the Senate, she's a US Senator now, what's stopping her?Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
There is always money when the "conservatives" want to spend it. The invasion of Iraq, walls, tax cuts for their friends, tax exemptions for their cults, paying their mercenaries like Eric Prince, Blackwater CEO and brother of the fundie slut now in charge of ruining education in the U.S., "abstinence education."
Tell us more about Hillary’s push to invade Iraq.Those stupid sheeples of America will just have to work harder so we can take more. Let them eat cake!
Warren Pressed on Spending: 'There's Always Money'
There is always money when the "conservatives" want to spend it. The invasion of Iraq, walls, tax cuts for their friends, tax exemptions for their cults, paying their mercenaries like Eric Prince, Blackwater CEO and brother of the fundie slut now in charge of ruining education in the U.S., "abstinence education."
The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.
