Warren Pressed On Spending: ‘There’s Always Money’

[Ray From Cleveland]

We

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.

What's even more frightening is, if she's not the candidate, who will be?

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.

The proof is in the pudding. It's not like we're taking a chance with Trump as we did his first election. We see what he's accomplished in spite of the opposition, witch hunts, and various other harassment by the Democrat party. What they couldn't stop, their commie judges did, or at the very least, delayed it.

In spite of that, a 50 year low in unemployment, a record high in median household income, new records broken for the most employment in every minority category since records were kept, and even a 70% reduction in border crossings since May, in spite of the leftist opposition, a reduction in food stamp recipients.

You can vote for anybody you want. I'll vote for what has worked for our country. Because the problem is we have too many voters who vote on representatives like they vote their favorite American Idol contestant, instead of voting who can (or is doing) the best job for the country.

While Warren may not get in, whoever does is going to focus on creating more government dependents like DumBama did. And to our disadvantage, may be successful.

 

[Lysistrata]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

And what did DumBama spend the money on? That's right, creating more government dependents.

We Republicans are all for cutting spending not within the constitution. That means social programs which Democrats can't live without. However even as a minority party, and with the help of RINO's, the Democrats still have the ability to stop Republicans from cutting anything.

 

[Crixus]

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'

It reminds me of when I was a kid at the store with my mom. It would go like this, "Mom, I saw this toy. It's an awesome toy and I really need it" to which she would say, "You are right, that is an awesome toy, but we don't have the money for it now". To which I would reply, "but you have checks".

 

[Andylusion]

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?

Then we follow the advise of Trump...."First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?"

First, Trump has nothing to do with the conversation. I don't get why you brought him up.

Second, you seem to be implying that there is no solution to a budget problem, except defaulting.

Why is it that the concept "Not spending money you don't have" such a difficult one?

Why is it that throughout all human existence, when a person has less money to spend, they learn to spend less money..... and yet in this case, the idea of spending within the confines of the amount of money coming is.... is consider impossible?

When you look at Greece, they have a 1% budget surplus right now.

How did they do this? They cut spending.

That's how you become fiscally responsible. You cut the spending.

It seems like every discussion we have with you, there is some magical unwritten assumption that well spending has to increase, and we have to keep blowing money non-stop.

No, we don't. We can cut medicare. We can cut Social Security. We can cut entitlements. Yes we can.

And more than that, you can write this down.... we will cut all that. We will either cut it by choice with difficult but necessary reforms... or we'll cut it when we go into default, because you prevented us from cutting them. We can either do cuts like the UK did, or we can do cuts like Greece did, but either way, spending will be cut. Just depends on how badly you want to wreck the economy in the process.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

First, Trump has nothing to do with the conversation. I don't get why you brought him up.

Because he has the same basic view as Warren.

Second, you seem to be implying that there is no solution to a budget problem, except defaulting.

Not even close. It was a dig at the faux-Con who does not care about spending or debt.

Why is it that the concept "Not spending money you don't have" such a difficult one?

Its not, which is why I have been pushing for it my whole time on this forum and for the last 30 years. Not sure who you have me mixed up with...but you are a mile off the mark.

Why is it that throughout all human existence, when a person has less money to spend, they learn to spend less money..... and yet in this case, the idea of spending within the confines of the amount of money coming is.... is consider impossible?

It is impossible because we do not have a party that is fiscally conservative and the voters will not vote for someone who is. As long as the members of both of our two parties keep voting the way they are, spending will never be cut.

It seems like every discussion we have with you, there is some magical unwritten assumption that well spending has to increase, and we have to keep blowing money non-stop.

I am not sure if you are drunk or just very confused, but I am one of the few people on here that care about the debt and think we are spending too much. I am one of the few complaining about spending our kids and grand kids money.

And more than that, you can write this down.... we will cut all that. We will either cut it by choice with difficult but necessary reforms... or we'll cut it when we go into default, because you prevented us from cutting them. We can either do cuts like the UK did, or we can do cuts like Greece did, but either way, spending will be cut. Just depends on how badly you want to wreck the economy in the process.

Once again...I am not sure if you are drunk or just very confused, but I am one of the few people on here that care about the debt and think we are spending too much. I am one of the few complaining about spending our kids and grand kids money.

 

[Andylusion]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

The Republicans were in fact making great headway in cutting deficit spending, before the crash.

In 2007, the deficit had declined from $400 Billion, to just $161 Billion in 2007.

In 2008, because of the crash, the deficit was a record breaking $459 Billion.

Now, if you are going to complain that Republicans spent a fortune before Obama was elected.... that implies that Obama would have done a better job.

Again, 2008 was a record breaking $459 Billion deficit. That was the biggest deficit we every ran under Bush, or any previous president.
And that was in the middle of a massive recession... in 2007 before the recession, the deficit was just $161 Billion.

If you are going to complain about Bush's track record on deficits, then I would expect YOUR Obama would have done better, since you seem to imply that you give a crap.

Not only did Obama not stop deficit spending, but there was only ONE SINGLE YEAR.... that the deficit under Obama was LOWER than the absolute worst deficit year under Bush.

Only ONE YEAR.... was the deficit under Obama lower than $459 Billion. That was 2015, where the deficit was $438 Billion.

Obama in his first two years in office, spent more in deficit spending, than Bush did in all 8 of his years in office combined.

Now if you think deficit spending is bad, and Trump isn't exactly frugal... great I agree... but your side isn't a solution. Democrats are just even bigger deficit spenders, than Trump.

Give me an alternative, and I'll consider them. But all your side does is want to drastically increase spending.... with all your garbage reasoning... free health care, education, housing, universal living wage, and all the other ridiculous programs you want to push.

There is nothing in your platform that even attempts to suggest reducing deficit, unless you want to drastically increase taxes, which has never worked in all human history. So you don't have any credibility on this. None.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

The Republicans were in fact making great headway in cutting deficit spending, before the crash.

In 2007, the deficit had declined from $400 Billion, to just $161 Billion in 2007.

In 2008, because of the crash, the deficit was a record breaking $459 Billion.

Now, if you are going to complain that Republicans spent a fortune before Obama was elected.... that implies that Obama would have done a better job.

Again, 2008 was a record breaking $459 Billion deficit. That was the biggest deficit we every ran under Bush, or any previous president.
And that was in the middle of a massive recession... in 2007 before the recession, the deficit was just $161 Billion.

If you are going to complain about Bush's track record on deficits, then I would expect YOUR Obama would have done better, since you seem to imply that you give a crap.

Not only did Obama not stop deficit spending, but there was only ONE SINGLE YEAR.... that the deficit under Obama was LOWER than the absolute worst deficit year under Bush.

Only ONE YEAR.... was the deficit under Obama lower than $459 Billion. That was 2015, where the deficit was $438 Billion.

Obama in his first two years in office, spent more in deficit spending, than Bush did in all 8 of his years in office combined.

Now if you think deficit spending is bad, and Trump isn't exactly frugal... great I agree... but your side isn't a solution. Democrats are just even bigger deficit spenders, than Trump.

Give me an alternative, and I'll consider them. But all your side does is want to drastically increase spending.... with all your garbage reasoning... free health care, education, housing, universal living wage, and all the other ridiculous programs you want to push.

There is nothing in your platform that even attempts to suggest reducing deficit, unless you want to drastically increase taxes, which has never worked in all human history. So you don't have any credibility on this. None.

Not to mention that every major conflict between the Republican House and DumBama had to do with spending. It caused the government shutdown, it was responsible for the US losing our three star credit rating for the first time in history, it was responsible for the sequester.

The problem was Republicans wanted to spend less and DumBama wanting to spend more.

 

[SAYIT]

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'

Hilarious.

Pathetic, really. Commietards like Warren never get it.

 

[Lysistrata]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

The Republicans were in fact making great headway in cutting deficit spending, before the crash.

In 2007, the deficit had declined from $400 Billion, to just $161 Billion in 2007.

In 2008, because of the crash, the deficit was a record breaking $459 Billion.

Now, if you are going to complain that Republicans spent a fortune before Obama was elected.... that implies that Obama would have done a better job.

Again, 2008 was a record breaking $459 Billion deficit. That was the biggest deficit we every ran under Bush, or any previous president.
And that was in the middle of a massive recession... in 2007 before the recession, the deficit was just $161 Billion.

If you are going to complain about Bush's track record on deficits, then I would expect YOUR Obama would have done better, since you seem to imply that you give a crap.

Not only did Obama not stop deficit spending, but there was only ONE SINGLE YEAR.... that the deficit under Obama was LOWER than the absolute worst deficit year under Bush.

Only ONE YEAR.... was the deficit under Obama lower than $459 Billion. That was 2015, where the deficit was $438 Billion.

Obama in his first two years in office, spent more in deficit spending, than Bush did in all 8 of his years in office combined.

Now if you think deficit spending is bad, and Trump isn't exactly frugal... great I agree... but your side isn't a solution. Democrats are just even bigger deficit spenders, than Trump.

Give me an alternative, and I'll consider them. But all your side does is want to drastically increase spending.... with all your garbage reasoning... free health care, education, housing, universal living wage, and all the other ridiculous programs you want to push.

There is nothing in your platform that even attempts to suggest reducing deficit, unless you want to drastically increase taxes, which has never worked in all human history. So you don't have any credibility on this. None.

So you are for funding everything from invasions to occupations to wasteful "defense" projects to "abstinence education"? Our money should be spent to improve the lives of the people of the United States, not on this silly shit. We can't even clean up after natural disasters in our states and territories, and the cost of cleaning up the chemical pollution alone is going to be exorbitant. There is nothing "ridiculous" about programs to provide for health care, education, housing, and a universal living wage.

 

[Andylusion]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

The Republicans were in fact making great headway in cutting deficit spending, before the crash.

In 2007, the deficit had declined from $400 Billion, to just $161 Billion in 2007.

In 2008, because of the crash, the deficit was a record breaking $459 Billion.

Now, if you are going to complain that Republicans spent a fortune before Obama was elected.... that implies that Obama would have done a better job.

Again, 2008 was a record breaking $459 Billion deficit. That was the biggest deficit we every ran under Bush, or any previous president.
And that was in the middle of a massive recession... in 2007 before the recession, the deficit was just $161 Billion.

If you are going to complain about Bush's track record on deficits, then I would expect YOUR Obama would have done better, since you seem to imply that you give a crap.

Not only did Obama not stop deficit spending, but there was only ONE SINGLE YEAR.... that the deficit under Obama was LOWER than the absolute worst deficit year under Bush.

Only ONE YEAR.... was the deficit under Obama lower than $459 Billion. That was 2015, where the deficit was $438 Billion.

Obama in his first two years in office, spent more in deficit spending, than Bush did in all 8 of his years in office combined.

Now if you think deficit spending is bad, and Trump isn't exactly frugal... great I agree... but your side isn't a solution. Democrats are just even bigger deficit spenders, than Trump.

Give me an alternative, and I'll consider them. But all your side does is want to drastically increase spending.... with all your garbage reasoning... free health care, education, housing, universal living wage, and all the other ridiculous programs you want to push.

There is nothing in your platform that even attempts to suggest reducing deficit, unless you want to drastically increase taxes, which has never worked in all human history. So you don't have any credibility on this. None.

So you are for funding everything from invasions to occupations to wasteful "defense" projects to "abstinence education"? Our money should be spent to improve the lives of the people of the United States, not on this silly shit. We can't even clean up after natural disasters in our states and territories, and the cost of cleaning up the chemical pollution alone is going to be exorbitant. There is nothing "ridiculous" about programs to provide for health care, education, housing, and a universal living wage.

That changes nothing of what I said. Nothing.

You made a complain about deficit spending with Bush. Your guy only had one single year, where he had a lower deficit, than the absolute worst year Bush had on deficits.

And here's the irony, and proof of the zero credibility you have on this topic... is in your very own post.

Look at your own post... are you talking about how we need to cut spending? No you are not saying anything to that effect at all.

From what you have said right here, it is safe to conclude that you have no intention of reducing the deficit at all, only to change what we spend the massive deficit spending you want, on.

So you in your very own post, have absolutely destroyed your own position.

You might as well have come on here saying "Trump 2020" as your post. Because you just gave me every reason to not trust you on this issue, and every reason to stick with who we have.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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'

Hilarious.

Pathetic, really. Commietards like Warren never get it.

It’s not Warren that needs to be feared. It’s the masses loose on our streets she’s trying to coddle with that BS.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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'

Thou shall not covet

 

[rightwinger]

Spending?

We just gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires. Of course we can afford to spend on education, healthcare and the less fortunate

 

[rightwinger]

Where oh where can we ever find any money

 

[SAYIT]

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'

Thou shall not covet

Dimocrats only pray when doing so for un-American and anti-American gifts from God … otherwise they are too "smart" to be snookered into believing.

It's not just that bitter American leftards celebrate when our investment markets dip, it's their hoping & praying that things will go very wrong for this country and its people. I can't even imagine doing such a thing (or how they can) but … well … they are proud of their seething hatred. Bill Maher made clear just how deep and all-consuming is their hate:

Liberal Media Scream: Bill Maher cheers economic collapse if it dooms Trump
“I’ve been hoping for a recession — people hate me for it — but it would get rid of Trump, so you shouldn’t hate me for it.”
To which, Barro noted: “Recessions are really bad. People lose their jobs and their homes.”
Maher doubled down: “I know. It’s worth it.”

Maher prays for a recession that will hurt millions of Americans simply because his butt hurts. That kind of disdain & disloyalty - when turned into action - is seditious, especially among those sworn to uphold our laws and our constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The repubs need to account for their spending for the last two decades at least.

And will just ignore he 10 trillion spent under DumBama.

You are just trying to deflect from the issue of republican spending. The republicans spent a fortune before Obama was even elected on things that purchased absolutely nothing for the American people.

The Republicans were in fact making great headway in cutting deficit spending, before the crash.

In 2007, the deficit had declined from $400 Billion, to just $161 Billion in 2007.

In 2008, because of the crash, the deficit was a record breaking $459 Billion.

Now, if you are going to complain that Republicans spent a fortune before Obama was elected.... that implies that Obama would have done a better job.

Again, 2008 was a record breaking $459 Billion deficit. That was the biggest deficit we every ran under Bush, or any previous president.
And that was in the middle of a massive recession... in 2007 before the recession, the deficit was just $161 Billion.

If you are going to complain about Bush's track record on deficits, then I would expect YOUR Obama would have done better, since you seem to imply that you give a crap.

Not only did Obama not stop deficit spending, but there was only ONE SINGLE YEAR.... that the deficit under Obama was LOWER than the absolute worst deficit year under Bush.

Only ONE YEAR.... was the deficit under Obama lower than $459 Billion. That was 2015, where the deficit was $438 Billion.

Obama in his first two years in office, spent more in deficit spending, than Bush did in all 8 of his years in office combined.

Now if you think deficit spending is bad, and Trump isn't exactly frugal... great I agree... but your side isn't a solution. Democrats are just even bigger deficit spenders, than Trump.

Give me an alternative, and I'll consider them. But all your side does is want to drastically increase spending.... with all your garbage reasoning... free health care, education, housing, universal living wage, and all the other ridiculous programs you want to push.

There is nothing in your platform that even attempts to suggest reducing deficit, unless you want to drastically increase taxes, which has never worked in all human history. So you don't have any credibility on this. None.

So you are for funding everything from invasions to occupations to wasteful "defense" projects to "abstinence education"? Our money should be spent to improve the lives of the people of the United States, not on this silly shit. We can't even clean up after natural disasters in our states and territories, and the cost of cleaning up the chemical pollution alone is going to be exorbitant. There is nothing "ridiculous" about programs to provide for health care, education, housing, and a universal living wage.

If the founders wanted us to spend on your items, they would have been listed in the Constitution. And before you say that the Constitution doesn't forbid such spending, then why would they list the things the federal government is responsible for? So of course much of your laundry list is ridiculous when you say the federal government is responsible for spending on those items before our military.

The US spends more per capita on their people for education than just about any other civilized country in the world. Yet, it's never enough, and we only have mediocre results to show for it. How would even more spending improve that when other countries spend less and get better results?

 

[basquebromance]

Rolling Stone put Pocahontas on the cover, my friends!

Elizabeth Warren: The Rolling Stone Interview

 

[Zorro!]

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'

AGAIN, REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE YOUR WAY INTO SOCIALISM, BUT YOU END UP HAVING TO SHOOT YOUR WAY OUT: The Genealogy of Free Stuff: The Trump Card.

On Friday the Wall Street Journal ran an extra-long and remarkable editorial about the agenda of Elizabeth Warren (“Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan, Oh My“), which is so far beyond extravagant that “socialism” seems an inadequate adjective. She makes Bernie Sanders look cautious by comparison. As the Journal put it in the lede:

“[A]s we discovered after a tour of her 60-some policy papers, Ms. Warren is proposing a transformation of American government, business and life that exceeds what the socialist dreamers of a century ago imagined.”​

Warren is not simply offering lots and lots of free stuff (Medicare for All, free college, higher Social Security benefits, the Green New Deal, $450 billion in new spending for K-12 education, $500 billion for housing, etc.), but also promises a huge expansion of federal government regulation of just about everything you can name.

I’ve previously offered my theory that Democrats have decided they should make an open lurch to the left because the supposed weakness of Trump presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enact the sweeping socialist agenda that has long been their private dream, even though there is a lot of evidence that many Democratic voters are not super excited about this radical economic agenda, not to mention the identitarian agenda that is equally central to the left at the moment.

An acquaintance with significant experience at the highest ranks of corporate America sent me a note with an additional explanation worth taking up:

Your discussion of the Democrats moving left makes sense. I think there is another factor. Trump refused to take the traditional Republican (Ryan) route of reforming entitlements. Democrats had feasted on this position for decades conjuring all kinds of horrors if reforms were enacted. Trump took this potent issue away from them. What to do? Expand the current entitlements! Once started, a bidding war developed and we have the Democratic candidate consensus on an impossible agenda. Also, the press had difficulty aggressively criticizing Trump’s position because they had endorsed Democratic criticisms of reform. So Trump is in an enviable position of criticizing unrealistic/irresponsible proposals instead of defending reductions.​