Republicans caught between a rock and a hard place

[LnGrrrR]

Obama put his cards on the table... either tax cuts expire for everyone, or they expire for the rich. Which scares the Republicans more? We'll find out soon. Republicans playing the "we're all in this together, for rich and for poor!" card probably won't work on the majority of Americans. So how do they spin this in their favor?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

To be fair, I'll bet plenty of Republicans are willing to go to the table with Obama. It's the Tea Party Terrorists who are the reason why its at a stand still.

[dbestpro]

The problem is the election of over and there is no reason to make peace for at least two years for either side. Both feel they are mandated by the people that elected them, so off the cliff we go.

[Th'Pusher]

The problem is the election of over and there is no reason to make peace for at least two years for either side. Both feel they are mandated by the people that elected them, so off the cliff we go.

The issue is the moron republicans who took the Norquist pledge, which is basically every republican member of congress. If they raise taxes Norquist will destroy them financially in their next primary which is why they all want to close loopholes instead of raising rates, praying that will be sufficient in the eyes of lord Norquist.

[SnakeBoy]

Obama put his cards on the table... either tax cuts expire for everyone, or they expire for the rich. Which scares the Republicans more? We'll find out soon. Republicans playing the "we're all in this together, for rich and for poor!" card probably won't work on the majority of Americans. So how do they spin this in their favor?

I don't think they can. Obama has the upper hand on this and the House republicans are going to get stomped in 2014 if they don't cave. I still can't understand why Obama didn't take this position 2 years ago.

The best move for Republicans is to give Obama whatever tax hikes he wants. If the economy tanks then it's all on the Dems.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think they can. Obama has the upper hand on this and the House republicans are going to get stomped in 2014 if they don't cave. I still can't understand why Obama didn't take this position 2 years ago.

The best move for Republicans is to give Obama whatever tax hikes he wants. If the economy tanks then it's all on the Dems.Um, what's the best move for the country?

[SnakeBoy]

Um, what's the best move for the country?

I don't know. I tend to agree with the President Obama that says raising taxes on anyone in times of such slow economic growth will be harmful to the economy. However the President Obama that says raising taxes on upper income people in times of such slow economic growth will help the economy could be right. I guess we will find out.

[Wild Cobra]

To be fair, I'll bet plenty of Republicans are willing to go to the table with Obama. It's the Tea Party Terrorists who are the reason why its at a stand still.
I'm all for the all or nothing ultimatum. It will be Obama's loss.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know. I tend to agree with the President Obama that says raising taxes on anyone in times of such slow economic growth will be harmful to the economy. However the President Obama that says raising taxes on upper income people in times of such slow economic growth will help the economy could be right. I guess we will find out.
Anyone who agrees with Obama in my opinion is just jealous of those making a high income. They have no desire, or belief that America is a free nation whereas they can accel to such a status.

I'll go one step farther. I think such people are either ignorant, or losers.

Really now. How does raising the marginal rate help? You don't catch the really rich in that snare. Professional sports players, Hollywood stars, some doctors and lawyers, etc. will pay higher taxes. But not the really rich, which have the majority of their income an capital gains.

[boutons_deux]

Barry should not allow any reduction in Medicare, medicaid, and NEVER allow opting out or privatization of SS

He should "fix" (the unbroken, non-urgent) SS by raising the cap to $5M, to remove its extreme regressiveness

capital gains rate/carried interest abolished and taxed as earned income.

ACA is the best way to help medicare, but paying less to greedy, gouging, fraudulent providers, NOT by Ryan's plan of protecting providers and fucking patients.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Anyone who agrees with Obama in my opinion is just jealous of those making a high income.

Yeah that must be it. I'm an undergrad who's a few more good interviews away from getting hired by a bulge bracket investment bank out of school. I must be jealous of high income people for wanting to tax them more.

[101A]

Eliminating the tax cuts on the "rich" will reduce the deficit by $1 T over 10 years.

A Trillion dollars is a hell of a lot of money; but it is not much more that a drop in the bucket spread over 10 years at the pace our country is racking up debt.

And yet, that was a cornerstone of the President's reelection; it IS true, I believe that the country voted for that - that is what it wants.

Will it hurt the economy? IMO, not really.

Will it help the economy? IMO not really.

It will reduce the deficit, but again, not significantly.

It will cause the rich to pay "their fair share". Whatever that is; they already pay the lion's share of income taxes - because they make the lion's share of income.

Will taxing them more raise the income of anyone else? No. In fact, the Rich will make the exact same income - they will just send more of it to the government. If they want their take home pay to remain the same, they will increase their incomes; and many probably have the means to do that (I could do this myself - simply by raising my own salary; take some away from my company to make up the difference. I won't do this, however, I always keep my personal income below the point that I would be paying the top rate - or I could just bonus myself through a dividend; paid at the capital gains rate).

The net result is the Rich will still be Rich, and the Poor will still be Poor; if the economy doesn't begin to improve at a (much) faster clip; there will probably me more poor.

Will the Democrats run on a "soak the rich" platform again in two, and four years? I wouldn't bet against it.

[101A]

He should "fix" (the unbroken, non-urgent) SS by raising the cap to $5M, to remove its extreme regressiveness



Should we just do away with all pretenses of SS consisting of individual accounts (I get my statement every couple of years)? That is, presumably, the reason for the cap; the benefit is capped, so the amount "set aside" is capped as well.

[boutons_deux]

'the benefit is capped"

not in time. Live to 95, and indexed to COL. the payout depends on your payin.

[101A]

'the benefit is capped"

not in time. Live to 95, and indexed to COL. the payout depends on your payin.




...and the payin is capped; are you suggesting this be extended to a $5M cap on tax; so that people would receive vastly different SS checks?

Also, if SS benefit is not capped; I'm getting some potentially shitty return on my investment.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Will it hurt the economy? IMO, not really.

Will it help the economy? IMO not really.

It will reduce the deficit, but again, not significantly.
So it'll reduce the deficit and have no negative effect on the economy.

Seems like a no-brainer idea to me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah that must be it. I'm an undergrad who's a few more good interviews away from getting hired by a bulge bracket investment bank out of school. I must be jealous of high income people for wanting to tax them more.

shameful

[101A]

So it'll reduce the deficit and have no negative effect on the economy.

Seems like a no-brainer idea to me.

Thanks for the contribution.

Just curious, btw; What do you think the top marginal tax rate ought to be? (not picking a fight, just wondering what an undergrad, whose really never known anything but a crappy economy would think)

[101A]

He should "fix" (the unbroken, non-urgent) SS by raising the cap to $5M, to remove its extreme regressiveness



Why do you stop at $5M? Just curious? If you don't tax ALL income, doesn't the "regressive" nature of the SS tax remain?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Thanks for the contribution.

Just curious, btw; What do you think the top marginal tax rate ought to be? (not picking a fight, just wondering what an undergrad, whose really never known anything but a crappy economy would think)

I think 40% so right around what it was with slick willy. My bigger issue is with a cap gains and qualified dividends tax at 15% as well as other exemptions/deductions (some of which aren't exemptions/deductions the rich take advantage of). This country's tax code is a mess and I think most would agree it needs to be overhauled.

I do think the corporate tax rate in this country is too high and its the one example where I truly think lowering it would help the economy.

[101A]

I think 40% so right around what it was with slick willy. My bigger issue is with a cap gains and qualified dividends tax at 15% as well as other exemptions/deductions (some of which aren't exemptions/deductions the rich take advantage of). This country's tax code is a mess and I think most would agree it needs to be overhauled.

I do think the corporate tax rate in this country is too high and its the one example where I truly think lowering it would help the economy.

I agree. Clinton, btw, lowered the cap gains rate - there is often bipartisan support for this. The cynic in me figures it's to help their (mutual) friends; the non-economist in me wonders if there is a real substantial reason to keep it low. I do know, as I illustrated above, that it is an easy way for business owners to transfer money to themselves to keep personal income tax low (however dividend income DOES come out of profits, therefore corporate taxes are paid on it, as well). The investors are the ones who (relatively) make out like bandits, it would appear.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm by no means one of those liberals who praises everything Clinton does. I think Clinton has his own bevy of contributions to the current mess this country is in.

I think there used to be real economic reason behind a low cap gains rate but the nature of most capital gains in today's economy isn't what it used to be. If the most common form of capital gains in this country was a business owner adding value to his company with investments that involve hiring labor and making capital expenditures, then selling his company after working his ass off, then a low cap gains rate would make perfect sense to me, but nowadays that's a very very small portion of what cap gains are.

I know dividends are double taxed, the way I see it is high dividends mean less economic growth. Dividends being taxed at the normal rate means investors would rather a company reinvest its earnings in new ventures than pay them out as dividends.

[Th'Pusher]

Anyone who agrees with Obama in my opinion is just jealous of those making a high income.
The non partisan CBO and Moody's Analytics are jealous of those making a high income!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The non partisan CBO and Moody's Analytics are jealous of those making a high income!

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are jealous of those with high income!

[Latarian Milton]

repugs assert that a higher tax % for the rich will make negative effects on investment which in return will cause even further shrinkage to the economy n hurt the poor even more as a result

[Latarian Milton]

we need to rebuild a strong middle class in order to resurrect the economy yet what the government always wants to do is tax the SHIT out of these people, while making the richest 1% exempt. small business sector should be the main employer in a healthy economy but the gonverment has made a terrible atmosphere for small business owners where they can hardly survive, let alone flourishing

[boutons_deux]

Why do you stop at $5M? Just curious? If you don't tax ALL income, doesn't the "regressive" nature of the SS tax remain?

suggestion accepted! :lol

ALL income should be subject to SS and medicare and unemployment.

[boutons_deux]

repugs assert that a higher tax % for the rich will make negative effects on investment which in return will cause even further shrinkage to the economy n hurt the poor even more as a result

It's a LIE

[coyotes_geek]

I'm all for the all or nothing ultimatum. It will be Obama's loss.

Right. Because the political scorecard is what's really important here.........

[coyotes_geek]

I know dividends are double taxed, the way I see it is high dividends mean less economic growth. Dividends being taxed at the normal rate means investors would rather a company reinvest its earnings in new ventures than pay them out as dividends.

???

Dividends are taxed at the normal rate. Dividends = ordinary income.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

???

Dividends are taxed at the normal rate. Dividends = ordinary income.

Why do so many people on this site keep insisting this? Qualified dividends (and and it's not like qualified is a very special criteria) are taxed at the long term cap gains rate. That was a part of the Bush tax cuts.

[coyotes_geek]

Why do so many people on this site keep insisting this? Qualified dividends (and and it's not like qualified is a very special criteria) are taxed at the long term cap gains rate. That was a part of the Bush tax cuts.

You're right. Got my head up my arse this morning.

[TeyshaBlue]

This morning?:p:

[coyotes_geek]

This morning?:p:

Well, that's my story. :lol

:toast and :flipoff

[DarrinS]

People tend to think low capital gains rates only benefit the super rich "Gordon Gecko" types. In reality, there are a lot of people (like myself) who own stock options that are subject to these rates. I'm hoping to cash these suckers in before the rates go up.

[boutons_deux]

"there are a lot of people"

the top 1% OWN 50% of all investment assets, so your " lot of people" own next to nothing in investment assets. and probably 50% actually own NO (non-residence) investments assets

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[DarrinS]

"there are a lot of people"

the top 1% OWN 50% of all investment assets, so your " lot of people" own next to nothing in investment assets. and probably 50% actually own NO (non-residence) investments assets

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


I never claimed that people like me own much relative to the 1% -- I'm just trying to maximize my return (as would any fucked and unfuckable human American).

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

People tend to think low capital gains rates only benefit the super rich "Gordon Gecko" types. In reality, there are a lot of people (like myself) who own stock options that are subject to these rates. I'm hoping to cash these suckers in before the rates go up.

It's not about who benefits from it, at least with me. It's about the type of investments it encourages. If someone rich benefits from a low cap gains rate because he sells the business he started from scratch after creating hundreds of jobs and adding to the economy, then in that instance a low cap gains rate is working. If a VC fund can make more aggressive investments in new ventures because of a low cap gains rate, then it would be working. Your stock options are an example of why the low cap gains rate isn't working. The low rates gave you incentive to invest in securities that contribute nothing to the economy and don't create any jobs. If a high cap gains rate made stock options a less sexy investment that proves my point.

[coyotes_geek]

Get rid of cap gains rates and just treat it all as ordinary income. Do that and you can lower income tax rates and still come out revenue positive.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Get rid of cap gains rates and just treat it all as ordinary income. Do that and you can lower income tax rates and still come out revenue positive.

In the long term I agree. In the short term I think we need to get rid of the cap gains rate and raise taxes to Clinton levels until the deficit is under control.

[DarrinS]

Well, I'm cashing out before I get screwed by the new rates.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm cashing out before I get screwed by the new rates.Then what?

[boutons_deux]

Get rid of cap gains rates and just treat it all as ordinary income. Do that and you can lower income tax rates and still come out revenue positive.

why lower income tax rates? they are already historically very low.

cap housing mortgage interest deduction at the rate for an region-adjusted avg house price on a 20-year mortgage. Any interest above that is not deductible.

100% of the value of employees group insurnace to be treated as a taxable benefit/income.

[LnGrrrR]

It will reduce the deficit, but again, not significantly.

Well, it will probably bring in more than the rigorous tax cuts that Republicans have proposed to PBS... :lol :stirpot:

[LnGrrrR]

People tend to think low capital gains rates only benefit the super rich "Gordon Gecko" types. In reality, there are a lot of people (like myself) who own stock options that are subject to these rates. I'm hoping to cash these suckers in before the rates go up.

I thought your stocks sucked? :lol

And I think the belief is that if businesses were reinvesting that capital into actual jobs, it would be a "rising tide" for other middle class workers.

[Th'Pusher]

I never claimed that people like me own much relative to the 1% -- I'm just trying to maximize my return (as would any fucked and unfuckable human American).
You and everyone else. Panicking like a moron. Go ahead and cash out while the market's down 7%. You should have sold before the election. Nate silver pretty much told you to :lol

[DarrinS]

You and everyone else. Panicking like a moron. Go ahead and cash out while the market's down 7%. You should have sold before the election. Nate silver pretty much told you to :lol


Uh, privately held company, dude. I'm talking about stocks in my own company.

[Th'Pusher]

Uh, privately held company, dude. I'm talking about stocks in my own company.
Ah. Mea culpa I should not make assumptions.

[Drachen]

Then what?
Then buy back in to get a new (higher) cost basis.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah that must be it. I'm an undergrad who's a few more good interviews away from getting hired by a bulge bracket investment bank out of school. I must be jealous of high income people for wanting to tax them more.
Let's say you are someone with a $300k income between you and your wife, and you are putting two kids through college, paying not only a mortgage, but two car payments, insurances, and other expenses. You have been living like this for some time now, and some jackass wants to tax another 4.6% of your taxable income at the top marginal rate, and SS reverts back to 6.2%. You have been living OK after paying high tuition, fees etc for the kids, but have so little disposable income already. You taxes and SS liability now jump another 14,600 for the year. Over $1,200 a month.

Just because people make more money doesn't mean they don't have expensive outlays.

[Wild Cobra]

"there are a lot of people"

the top 1% OWN 50% of all investment assets, so your " lot of people" own next to nothing in investment assets. and probably 50% actually own NO (non-residence) investments assets

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
So, you want to penalize me too because I'm part of the 50% that's not in the 1%?

Jealous because you don't have any?

How would you feel if you has a healthy stock portfolio?

[ElNono]

Let's say you are someone with a $300k income between you and your wife, and you are putting two kids through college, paying not only a mortgage, but two car payments, insurances, and other expenses. You have been living like this for some time now, and some jackass wants to tax another 4.6% of your taxable income at the top marginal rate, and SS reverts back to 6.2%. You have been living OK after paying high tuition, fees etc for the kids, but have so little disposable income already. You taxes and SS liability now jump another 14,600 for the year. Over $1,200 a month.

The math doesn't add up here.

- College: A very top college cost/year (take Columbia University (http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/feesandexpenses.php)), runs you at about $60k per person, and it's easily the highest expense ($120k/year). You get no deductions here because you're making over $160k (jointly).
- Mortgage: let's take New York again, which is comparatively more expensive than most markets. The average mortgage payment (http://www.mortgage-lenders-plus.com/mortgage/new-york-mortgage-lenders.html) here is $1650/mo. That's roughly $20K/year. You have tax deductions on the interest of this loan.
- Cars: we go high end here too... Two 2013 Mercedes Benz E350 Sedans at $50K each. 5K down payment, 60 months loan. Roughly $665/mo each in payments. That's $16K/year for both.

So the bulk expenses per year are: $120K+$20K+$16K = $156K/year.

We can toss another $50K/year in insurance, property taxes, food and other expenses... That leaves you with roughly $100K.

Now your tax bill after deductions, etc, is probably gonna come at around $60K, give or take, so your disposable income is roughly $40K/year.

$40K/year is little disposable income?

And obviously this brings up a few points:
- If you've been making $300K/year for a while, living large, and you didn't save anything to pay kid's college, you're probably a dumbass.
- You're sending your kids to a top college. It's temporary and it's more like an investment. A lot of people would like to be able to afford sending not one, but two kids to such colleges.
- That's a 250K dollar house you're paying with that mortgage.
- Do you really need two Benz?
- If $40K/year isn't enough disposable income, you probably need to stop blowing cocaine on strip clubs.

[Jacob1983]

http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/between_a_rock_and_a_hard_place.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Excuses excuses.

My major point was you have a family living a specific lifestyle, and you are now asking them to cut their lifestyle by $1200/month.

Your $60 is about right for federal taxes at the old rates, unless they have a lot of deductions. The new rates will increase their liability by around $10k. What about state taxes? You also didn't include SS tax. It changes from $9,248.40 to at least $13,652.

Seriously. Should a well off family have to pay more than $1k monthly more in taxes just because December changes to January? Anything like this should be done gradually.

I guess we could end up just having one more unemployed maid...

[ElNono]

I'm thoroughly unconcerned of the 'major' lifestyle changes a family will have to endure because their disposable income went from $40k/year to $30k/year, tbh. I mean, they're going to have to sell one of the Benz and cut down on the Vegas trips to make up the difference! :dramaquee

[Wild Cobra]

Do you really think they will have that much disposable income? Most people jack their lifestyle up to having little disposable income.

Consider this too.

Who the fuck are you to say others have too much money? Are you proud to be an authoritarian?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

He's seeing he's not about to feel sorry for them because their lifestyle would become slightly less lavish. I'm not either. If I make it big with my career and start raking in several hundred K a year, I wouldn't feel sorry for myself either for paying more taxes. I'd much rather be the guy who gets a little disposable income taken away in the top tax bracket than the guy who receives welfare from increased taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow.

Piddly-assed small minded people here...

These people already pay out several tens of thousands in taxes, and you expect more?

Fuck all you libtards.

[Clipper Nation]

Anyone who agrees with Obama in my opinion is just jealous of those making a high income.

Yeah, Barry is sooooo jealous of the Fed banksters, defense contractors, lobbyists, and 1%ers he's beholden to :lol

[Rick Santorum]

Wow.

Piddly-assed small minded people here...

These people already pay out several tens of thousands in taxes, and you expect more?

Fuck all you libtards.
:lmao meltdown

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao meltdown
Not a meltdown. Just tired of being surrounded by such selfish stupidity.

[Rick Santorum]

Seriously. Should a well off family have to pay more than $1k monthly more in taxes just because December changes to January? Anything like this should be done gradually.

You can thank George Bush as the main culprit behind why that family's taxes were lower than they ever should have been in the 1st place.

(Before pointing out how Obama renewed the tax cuts, yeah, he did it in the middle of a recession to avoid the tea party terrorists kicking and screaming like a bunch of 3 year olds)

[Wild Cobra]

Go ahead. Bring the tax rates back to what they were, but slowely. Over time. Not all at once. It will be a shock that does more harm than good if done suddenly.

An average 3% at the marginal rat and another 25 for SS...

5%...

[Rick Santorum]

"God dammit Barry! I have no problem with George Bush's mistakes, but the way you're trying to correct them is fucking this country!"

[Wild Cobra]

So tell me.

How many of these people making $200k to $400k do you think will be letting their hired help go? How many more unemployed will there be?

[DarrinS]

I have no problem with taxing the rich, but there aren't enough of them.

Bigger problem is, spending 4 trillion/yr has become the new normal.

[boutons_deux]

cutting taxes on the rich doesn't create jobs, raising taxes on the rich doesn't kill jobs

[Rick Santorum]

Bigger problem is, spending 4 trillion/yr has become the new normal.

Yet you supported a candidate who wanted to increase military spending by 2 trillion and I'm guessing you have no problem with the ridiculous defense spending where it currently is.

"I'm a Republican and I want small government but lots of military spending!"

[Rick Santorum]

How many of these people making $200k to $400k do you think will be letting their hired help go? How many more unemployed will there be?
Unemployment was at about 3% when slick willy left office and had taxes at this supposed horrid level.

How much lower do taxes need to be for the trickle down effect to kick in?

[ChumpDumper]

Won't somebody think of the lifestyles of the wealthy?

[Rick Santorum]

Won't somebody think of the lifestyles of the wealthy?

Don't you have any sympathy for top tax bracket!

[LnGrrrR]

Let's say you are someone with a $300k income between you and your wife, and you are putting two kids through college, paying not only a mortgage, but two car payments, insurances, and other expenses. You have been living like this for some time now, and some jackass wants to tax another 4.6% of your taxable income at the top marginal rate, and SS reverts back to 6.2%. You have been living OK after paying high tuition, fees etc for the kids, but have so little disposable income already. You taxes and SS liability now jump another 14,600 for the year. Over $1,200 a month.

Just because people make more money doesn't mean they don't have expensive outlays.

So I should feel bad for the person with expensive outlays, and not for the person who needs welfare to get by? :lol Hey, tell you what, maybe your kids should've earned scholarships, or gone to the military. Maybe you have to sell a car. Maybe you have to, I don't know, sacrifice by making the kids pay for their own cell phones.

If you've got 300K income in your household, you're in the top 2% in the NATION. You really have no right to bitch.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you really think they will have that much disposable income? Most people jack their lifestyle up to having little disposable income.

Consider this too.

Who the fuck are you to say others have too much money? Are you proud to be an authoritarian?

Then it's their fault for jacking up their lifestyle.

And who the fuck are you to say that others have ENOUGH money? That's the problem with the right nowadays, like it's some fucking virtue to scratch and claw for every penny. :lol "How dare you ask me to pay 10K more in taxes! Even though the country has somehow magically seen wealth stagnate for the middle classes, drop for the lower classes, and SKYROCKET for the upper class, how dare you ask me to give any of that back!! RARR!!"

[LnGrrrR]

Wow.

Piddly-assed small minded people here...

These people already pay out several tens of thousands in taxes, and you expect more?

Fuck all you libtards.

Well fuck, I guess we should just have everyone pay out 5 dollars. I'm sure that will keep the country running! And then it would be FAIR! I mean, sure we have tons of tax loopholes for the rich, and each dollar is less valuable to them than those making much less, but how dare we ask them to cut their spending!

Of course, WC is the first person to complain about people on welfare who say, drink a slushee, or have a cell phone, or them doing pretty much anything but eating bread or water. THEY are the ones who should sacrifice! Even though the middle class and lower are the ones who actually do the spending, and the rich are usually sitting on thousands/millions in the bank that aren't being spent.

[boutons_deux]

"These people already pay out several tens of thousands in taxes"

Ha! the old "absolute value" canard rather "fair share percentage".

[ElNono]

:lol going from the "family making $300K already struggling" to "who are you to say what should they pay" goalpost move once the example is burned to the ground... typical, tbh

[baseline bum]

:cry Can't afford two Mercedes with my kids going to private bible college U :cry

:cry Wife will have to slum it in a Honda :cry

[Th'Pusher]

Let's say you are someone with a $300k income between you and your wife, and you are putting two kids through college, paying not only a mortgage, but two car payments, insurances, and other expenses. You have been living like this for some time now, and some jackass wants to tax another 4.6% of your taxable income at the top marginal rate, and SS reverts back to 6.2%. You have been living OK after paying high tuition, fees etc for the kids, but have so little disposable income already. You taxes and SS liability now jump another 14,600 for the year. Over $1,200 a month.

Just because people make more money doesn't mean they don't have expensive outlays.

I don't even think WC math is correct. They would be paying an additional 4.6% on the amount above $250k, so $50k x .046 = $2300. The payroll tax is capped at like the first $110k of income so that would be subject to an additional 2%, so 110k x .02 = $2200. $2200 + $2300 = $4500 annual tax increase. If someone making 300k a year can't afford the additional 4.5k they are living far beyond their means.

am I calculating something wrong?

[Th'Pusher]

I don't even think WC math is correct. They would be paying an additional 4.6% on the amount above $250k, so $50k x .046 = $2300. The payroll tax is capped at like the first $110k of income so that would be subject to an additional 2%, so 110k x .02 = $2200. $2200 + $2300 = $4500 annual tax increase. If someone making 300k a year can't afford the additional 4.5k they are living far beyond their means.

am I calculating something wrong?

I guess if both husband and wife were employed and making more than 110k they would both be subject to the increased payroll tax of $2200 bringing the total to $6700 annually. Still, it is an effective 2.2% tax increase on a couple making 300k a year and this is what people are up in arms about?

[Th'Pusher]

WC, am I wrong correcting your math?

[Wild Cobra]

Unemployment was at about 3% when slick willy left office and had taxes at this supposed horrid level.

How much lower do taxes need to be for the trickle down effect to kick in?
You guys keep forgetting Slick Willy ran the wave of the tech bubble and the Y2K scare. Two things he had no control over.

Really think he would do any better if elected in 2000 instead?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, am I wrong correcting your math?
Yes, you are wrong. The majority of the income only increases by about 3%, 25 to 28, 28 to 31, etc. It's not till you get the 35% to 39.6% change in the marginal rate that you see the 4.6% increase.

If they have enough deductions to get down to $200k taxable, that alone is still more than a $6,000 increase in taxes. That with the $4404 increase on SS in already more than a $10k increase in taxes.

That's why I ask. How many maids will get laid off? Yard maintenance, pool cleaning services, etc. How much will their business decrease when people have to start cutting the outlay?

Is it more important to have this money where the government can waste it, or should it be used in the local economy?

[Th'Pusher]

Yes, you are wrong. The majority of the income only increases by about 3%, 25 to 28, 28 to 31, etc. It's not till you get the 35% to 39.6% change in the marginal rate that you see the 4.6% increase.

If they have enough deductions to get down to $200k taxable, that alone is still more than a $6,000 increase in taxes. That with the $4404 increase on SS in already more than a $10k increase in taxes.

That's why I ask. How many maids will get laid off? Yard maintenance, pool cleaning services, etc. How much will their business decrease when people have to start cutting the outlay?

Is it more important to have this money where the government can waste it, or should it be used in the local economy?

Show me what specifically is wrong with my math for the 300k income you specified in your example

[Wild Cobra]

Show me what specifically is wrong with my math for the 300k income you specified in your example
No, I'm not going to waste the time for that.

So we disagree on the number. Whoop-t-do. It's still a pretty large number that will have some effect on local purchases.

[Th'Pusher]

No, I'm not going to waste the time for that.

So we disagree on the number. Whoop-t-do. It's still a pretty large number that will have some effect on local purchases.

Ok. Your number is >100% more than mine. Yours is BS until you show me where mine is incorrect.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, you are wrong. The majority of the income only increases by about 3%, 25 to 28, 28 to 31, etc. It's not till you get the 35% to 39.6% change in the marginal rate that you see the 4.6% increase.If they have enough deductions to get down to $200k taxable, that alone is still more than a $6,000 increase in taxes. That with the $4404 increase on SS in already more than a $10k increase in taxes.That's why I ask. How many maids will get laid off? Yard maintenance, pool cleaning services, etc. How much will their business decrease when people have to start cutting the outlay?Is it more important to have this money where the government can waste it, or should it be used in the local economy?Considering that its either going to fund a) the jobs of government workers who are likely making less than 75k or b) someone who is a recipient of government help, it is still likely going to help those poor people you're so concerned about.Tell me WC, in your world, how much should multi millionaires pay in taxes? I guess nothing according to your logic, since you'd be taking away all that trickledown!Of course, the fact that the highest tax rates keep going down, and the wealth keeps getting more concentrated into the hands of the rich and not the middle class... Well that means nothing right?

[Th'Pusher]

Considering that its either going to fund a) the jobs of government workers who are likely making less than 75k or b) someone who is a recipient of government help, it is still likely going to help those poor people you're so concerned about.Tell me WC, in your world, how much should multi millionaires pay in taxes? I guess nothing according to your logic, since you'd be taking away all that trickledown!Of course, the fact that the highest tax rates keep going down, and the wealth keeps getting more concentrated into the hands of the rich and not the middle class... Well that means nothing right?

WC's numbers assume they pay the additional 4.6% on all income when in fact, it is only income above 250k which, in his original example is only 50k. He says 10k in additional taxes when it is really only 2.4k. His numbers are wildly inacurate and he should not be taken seriously when discussing tax matters.

[clambake]

well, he did say whoop t do.

[Wild Cobra]

Ok. Your number is >100% more than mine. Yours is BS until you show me where mine is incorrect.
My number is considering all tax breaks resume to normal. I think yours is only considering the rich's taxes going back up.

Would I be right or wrong about your calculations?

[Th'Pusher]

My number is considering all tax breaks resume to normal. I think yours is only considering the rich's taxes going back up.

Would I be right or wrong about your calculations?
Wrong. Your applying the increase in tax to the total whereas it only applies to the Mount above 250k which is 50k in your 300k example.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering that its either going to fund a) the jobs of government workers who are likely making less than 75k or b) someone who is a recipient of government help, it is still likely going to help those poor people you're so concerned about.Tell me WC, in your world, how much should multi millionaires pay in taxes? I guess nothing according to your logic, since you'd be taking away all that trickledown!Of course, the fact that the highest tax rates keep going down, and the wealth keeps getting more concentrated into the hands of the rich and not the middle class... Well that means nothing right?
First of all, keep in mind that they pay more simply by making more. It is only fair that everyone pay the same tax rates. I think the lower income people are paying too little of a marginal rate and that the rich are paying too much. Where is the "equal suffrage?" I will assume that you are basing your question on our current tax structure. Under that assumption, I say eliminate all credits across the board. Eliminate most deductions. Keep in place charitable deductions with a limit of in the neighborhood of $12,000 annual. Up to 4 personal exemptions for a couple, 3 for a Head of Household. Elderly care as an exception for more. A standard deduction for the tax payer, equal for everyone. Eliminate Earned Income Credit, or simply give all citizens 18 years and older a monthly check of maybe $300.

You have to remember the end result of our tax system. It increases or decreases selected activities. It isn't fair when you give one group something and not another.

Here is the biggest one i have mentioned two or three times before. Since Social Security and medicare are simply not as advertised, just call them a tax, Add then together and call it a social tax. We have the 6.2% and 1.45% employer payroll tax part, and the personal 4.2% SS and 1.45% Social security and Medicare deductions for the employee as well. Require all employers to give their employees a one time pay raise, and make the employee pay this full 13.2% tax. Call it a social tax. The one time pay raise will be enough to cover this relocated tax burden. All employees pay this full 13.2% just like we all currently pay the 5.65%. The purpose of this is twofold. First, people see a more realistic cost of their employment is. Second, this rate changes as government spending does. It affected everyone, giving everyone "skin in the game" when it comes to pressuring government to spend less, and more wisely. The goal would be to reduce this tax for everyone by increasing government efficiency and reducing spending.

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong. Your applying the increase in tax to the total whereas it only applies to the Mount above 250k which is 50k in your 300k example.
No, I am right then.

[LnGrrrR]

So exactly what should the tax rate be for everyone WC? And you do realize that 1k means a lot more to someone making 25k a year than someone making 250k, right? Look at your examples... They may have to go without a maid. The person making 25k a year probably has to live in a bad part of town, drive a junker, and see a movie a few times a year.An easy way to show the value of money... Who do you think would be happier about an extra 10k per year? The person going from 25 to 35, or the person going from 250k to 260k?Additionally, now you want the poor to pay more taxes. Weren't you just arguing that the gov was ineffective and you'd rather have that money in the hands of the people to purchase things? Which is it?If you raise taxes on the lower classes, you're going to reduce spending. The lower classes spend more of their incomes on expenditures out of necessity. (You can't save much when you need to spend on the basics.)

[Th'Pusher]

No, I am right then.
No. You are wrong. Detail how taxes will go up on a couple filing jointly, both making 150k per year for a total taxable income of 300k. No deductions. Your initial numbers are wildly off base and bordering on dick Morris crazy scaremongering.

[ElNono]

Rich folks already got rid of the maid and bought an iRobot... heck, if anybody still have a maid it's probably Martita from Mexico getting paid under the table.

[Wild Cobra]

So exactly what should the tax rate be for everyone WC?
I don't know, but this class warfare the libtrads keep employing pisses me off so much. What ever happened to respecting other, and equality?

Consider this. No matter what we set our top marginal rate to, we have a long term average of collecting 18.3% of the GNP (or is it GDP?). This varies so little. It's a very tight receipt of revenue of about 18.3%. For that reason alone, why should anyone pay so much higher a rate than anyone else?

Yes. $1k means more to some than others. So what. Life isn't equal, and the authoritarian approach of making it equal should be criminal.

[Wild Cobra]

No. You are wrong. Detail how taxes will go up on a couple filing jointly, both making 150k per year for a total taxable income of 300k. No deductions. Your initial numbers are wildly off base and bordering on dick Morris crazy scaremongering.
LOL...

Really. I don't show you how I came to that conclusion so I am wrong?

Clue...

Think outside the box. Look at the possibilities.

This should be fun. Now I'm not going to show you. I explained it, and that should be enough, unless you are diving into a topic you aren't equipped to handle.

[Wild Cobra]

Rich folks already got rid of the maid and bought an iRobot... heck, if anybody still have a maid it's probably Martita from Mexico getting paid under the table.
You would know...

[Th'Pusher]

LOL...

Really. I don't show you how I came to that conclusion so I am wrong?

Clue...

Think outside the box. Look at the possibilities.

This should be fun. Now I'm not going to show you. I explained it, and that should be enough, unless you are diving into a topic you aren't equipped to handle.
Lol. You are a moron. Tell me how a couple making 300k's taxes are going up 14k+. You are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol. You are a moron. Tell me how a couple making 300k's taxes are going up 14k+. You are wrong.
It's a $9.6k increase on income taxes after taking out the $4404 in SS increases.

9.6k/240k is 4%. As they pay increased step rates, 10 to 15 (5%), 15 to 28 (13%), 25 to 28 (3%), 28 to 31 (3%), etc. it averages out that way.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know, but this class warfare the libtrads keep employing pisses me off so much. What ever happened to respecting other, and equality?Consider this. No matter what we set our top marginal rate to, we have a long term average of collecting 18.3% of the GNP (or is it GDP?). This varies so little. It's a very tight receipt of revenue of about 18.3%. For that reason alone, why should anyone pay so much higher a rate than anyone else?Yes. $1k means more to some than others. So what. Life isn't equal, and the authoritarian approach of making it equal should be criminal.So you're against any form of progressive taxation? And if you are only for a flat tax, you realize that's "unfair" in the sense of how much each dollar is worth to a person?Finally, arguing for a flat tax seems to be akin to arguing that we should legalize all drugs. It's just a nonstarter. I haven't seen one policy that explains how a flat tax could even pay for half of our current spending without a severe strain on the middle class and below.Just look at your own posts WC... You have no sympathy for the lower classes, saying they have to have "skin in the game" and usually referring to them as lazy, cheaters etc etc, but sympathize with the rich household that has to give up a maid. And you wonder why there's class warfare?

[Wild Cobra]

So you're against any form of progressive taxation? And if you are only for a flat tax, you realize that's "unfair" in the sense of how much each dollar is worth to a person?Finally, arguing for a flat tax seems to be akin to arguing that we should legalize all drugs. It's just a nonstarter. I haven't seen one policy that explains how a flat tax could even pay for half of our current spending without a severe strain on the middle class and below.Just look at your own posts WC... You have no sympathy for the lower classes, saying they have to have "skin in the game" and usually referring to them as lazy, cheaters etc etc, but sympathize with the rich household that has to give up a maid. And you wonder why there's class warfare?
Ask yourself this.

How much wealth redistribution is enough?

When does it stop?

[DMX7]

Ask yourself this.

How much wealth redistribution is enough?

When does it stop?

Slippery slope strawman bullshit. 5% more is enough if we're simply talking fed income tax rates on the highest bracket of earners.

[Th'Pusher]

It's a $9.6k increase on income taxes after taking out the $4404 in SS increases.

9.6k/240k is 4%. As they pay increased step rates, 10 to 15 (5%), 15 to 28 (13%), 25 to 28 (3%), 28 to 31 (3%), etc. it averages out that way.

????

The reality is, everyone, regardless of how much they make is going to feel the 2% payroll tax increase so that is irrelevant.

The person making 300k per year will see a 4.6% tax increase on 50k, which is $2300.
The person making 350k taxes will increase $4600
400K = $6900
450k = $9100

and so on and so on. Not too much to ask when we are $16T in debt.

[DMX7]

I don't know, but this class warfare the libtrads keep employing pisses me off so much. What ever happened to respecting other, and equality?


class warfare? You are so fucking gullible. not even the repugs are using that line anymore because not enough people were stupid enough to buy it.

[Wild Cobra]

????

The reality is, everyone, regardless of how much they make is going to feel the 2% payroll tax increase so that is irrelevant.

The person making 300k per year will see a 4.6% tax increase on 50k, which is $2300.
The person making 350k taxes will increase $4600
400K = $6900
450k = $9100

and so on and so on. Not too much to ask when we are $16T in debt.
Once again, as I pointed out. We are calculating this differently. You are calculating the demonrats idea, I am calculating the all or nothing.

[Wild Cobra]

class warfare? You are so fucking gullible. not even the repugs are using that line anymore because not enough people were stupid enough to buy it.
Or, because it's so blatantly obvious, it doesn't need to be said to intelligent people.

[Th'Pusher]

Once again, as I pointed out. We are calculating this differently. You are calculating the demonrats idea, I am calculating the all or nothing.
explain all or nothing rates. i am calculating reality.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry. I'm done wasting my time with you.

[ElNono]

You would know...

I would know what? :lol

BTW, don't have an Roomba yet...

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, don't have an Roomba yet...
Did you mean Robama?

[LnGrrrR]

Ask yourself this.

How much wealth redistribution is enough?

When does it stop?

Considering that the wealth redistribution in America over the past two decades has gone upwards, rather than downwards, I might ask you the same question. How much of a percentage of America's income should the top 1% get?

[Wild Cobra]

Considering that the wealth redistribution in America over the past two decades has gone upwards, rather than downwards, I might ask you the same question. How much of a percentage of America's income should the top 1% get?
Really?

I didn't know we were taxing the poor and giving to the rich on an ongoing basis. And if you recall, I have been against all the bailouts, corn subsidies, energy subsidies etc. which I think are the only things you can claim as going to the rich, when it comes to redistribution.

As for a percentage of income? It doesn't matter. GNP, GDI, GDP, etc. are not static. If the poor living on handouts would get off their duffs and work any available job, those numbers would increase.

[LnGrrrR]

Really?

I didn't know we were taxing the poor and giving to the rich on an ongoing basis. And if you recall, I have been against all the bailouts, corn subsidies, energy subsidies etc. which I think are the only things you can claim as going to the rich, when it comes to redistribution.

As for a percentage of income? It doesn't matter. GNP, GDI, GDP, etc. are not static. If the poor living on handouts would get off their duffs and work any available job, those numbers would increase.

I don't see how you can say the percentage of income doesn't matter. Why do you think over the past 30/40 years, that wealth has grown moreso with the rich than the middle class? Are you saying that you think 98% of America is lazy, and only the 2% are the hard workers?

Tell me WC, do you think wage stagnation doesn't matter as long as the GDP is rising? Don't you think we might have a better economy if more money were in the hands of those who would be more likely to spend it?

And again, we see where your sympathies lie.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see how you can say the percentage of income doesn't matter.

Appearances aren't everything.


Why do you think over the past 30/40 years, that wealth has grown moreso with the rich than the middle class?

Because since the 60's, we have had a welfare system that too many are complacent being a part of.


Are you saying that you think 98% of America is lazy, and only the 2% are the hard workers?

No.

I'm saying a significant part of America has no motivation to better themselves.


Tell me WC, do you think wage stagnation doesn't matter as long as the GDP is rising?

Sure it matters. It has mniothign to do with the rich though. I see it as an ignorant perception and convenient scapegoat.


Don't you think we might have a better economy if more money were in the hands of those who would be more likely to spend it?

Absolutely. But it doesn't need to be taken away from the others who may simply use it in other ways.


And again, we see where your sympathies lie.

Yet you don't address it at all. Want more wealth and jobs here? Find a way to stop exporting our jobs overseas. Taxing the rich is not going to fix the employment problem.

[ChumpDumper]

Did you mean Robama?What does that even mean?

[LnGrrrR]

Appearances aren't everything.

Sure it does. Even if GDP is rising, if it's only going to the richest people, then that's not really effective/useful.


Because since the 60's, we have had a welfare system that too many are complacent being a part of.

The two go somewhat hand-in-hand, don't they? If middle class wages ROSE, then you would have less people who need/qualify for that welfare.


No.

I'm saying a significant part of America has no motivation to better themselves.

What percentage? The amount on welfare? Because the number of people with wages that have stayed stagnant over the past few years is a lot higher than those on welfare.


Sure it matters. It has mniothign to do with the rich though. I see it as an ignorant perception and convenient scapegoat.

How can it have nothing to do with the rich? The rich are the "job creators", right? So they're the ones in charge of determining salaries. As mentioned before, CEOs and other management figures have seen THEIR salaries raise greatly. So how come the "little guy" isn't seeing that? What's your reasoning?


Absolutely. But it doesn't need to be taken away from the others who may simply use it in other ways.

I know you also didn't agree with the bailout and tax loopholes out there, but as long as they are still out there, we're already taking some from the middle class and giving it to the rich. As long as those are around, I'm fine with higher taxes.

Look at it this way... when people talk about capital gains tax compared to income tax, no one talks about it as redistributing from the lower to the upper classes. It's always talked about as "money for the job creators". We're losing tax money off of them, and look at all the people like yourself who are saying that the middle class should have to kick in more instead.


Yet you don't address it at all. Want more wealth and jobs here? Find a way to stop exporting our jobs overseas. Taxing the rich is not going to fix the employment problem.

Who are the people who are exporting jobs overseas? Is it the small businesses? Hm... nope. It's the big corporations who have that ability. Maybe if becoming a CEO weren't so inviting, more people would stay as a smaller business!

[ElNono]

Did you mean Robama?

What's that? :lol

[Trainwreck2100]

Considering that the wealth redistribution in America over the past two decades has gone upwards, rather than downwards, I might ask you the same question. How much of a percentage of America's income should the top 1% get?

Good question how much money do you give job creators before they start creating jobs

[SnakeBoy]

Not too much to ask when we are $16T in debt.

It does nothing towards solving our debt problem.

[SnakeBoy]

Considering that the wealth redistribution in America over the past two decades has gone upwards, rather than downwards, I might ask you the same question. How much of a percentage of America's income should the top 1% get?

How does taxing the rich increase the wages of everyone else?

[baseline bum]

It does nothing towards solving our debt problem.

The extra $1 trillion over 10 years would help to pay for Bush's retarded trip into Iraq.

[Th'Pusher]

It does nothing towards solving our debt problem.
Really? Are you going to suggest the debt problem can only be solved on the spending side? The consensus is we need $4t debt reduction over 10 years . This gets us 1/4 of the way.

[Th'Pusher]

How does taxing the rich increase the wages of everyone else?
Well,unfortunately the rich are not playing along with that whole trickle down thing they sold us so now were having to resort to confiscation and redistribution? Just think if they would have played along with capitalism and the invisible hand, this all could have been avoided.

[baseline bum]

How does taxing the rich increase the wages of everyone else?

By not driving us even further into debt that will eventually have to be paid, so an indirect benefit to the people.

[baseline bum]

Why do conservatives seem to act like our empire runs on waving American flags and renditions of God Bless America?

[Clipper Nation]

Why do conservatives seem to act like our empire runs on waving American flags and renditions of God Bless America?

That's just neoconservatives, tbh... neocons aren't too bright and so any lame advertising trope will convince them of shit, hence all the flag-waving from neocon politicians when it's either election season or time to go to war...

[Wild Cobra]

The two go somewhat hand-in-hand, don't they? If middle class wages ROSE, then you would have less people who need/qualify for that welfare.

Why should the middle class be getting any assistance? It shouldn't change the numbers.


What percentage? The amount on welfare? Because the number of people with wages that have stayed stagnant over the past few years is a lot higher than those on welfare.

I'm not talking about wage stagnation, though that is a problem too. I'm talking about the people who are OK with living off the system. people who would work if it was made harder to stay in the system.


How can it have nothing to do with the rich? The rich are the "job creators", right?
Not all are. A handful of them are. primarily the small businesses who's taxes you want to raise.

So they're the ones in charge of determining salaries. As mentioned before, CEOs and other management figures have seen THEIR salaries raise greatly. So how come the "little guy" isn't seeing that? What's your reasoning?

CEO's are a different story. Income tax rates don't affect them much because they get most their money by stocks, or other m4ans taxed ax a lower rate, outside of the income taxable.


Look at it this way... when people talk about capital gains tax compared to income tax, no one talks about it as redistributing from the lower to the upper classes.
It isn't. When you are paying, it isn't the poor money moving to the rich through the IRS.

It's always talked about as "money for the job creators".
Where? Alternet? Other places like that which lie?

We're losing tax money off of them,
That takes the authoritarian attitude that it doesn't belong to them in the first place. That you allow them to keep what you say they can keep. Which communist leader do you follow the teachings of?

and look at all the people like yourself who are saying that the middle class should have to kick in more instead.

In some cases, yes. The single person under our system is taxed too much. There are simply too many credits and benefits in the tax code when there are children. Rather than give all tax payers more and more credits, maybe we should just increase the Earned income Credit. As much as I diskile its usage, I prefer simplicity in the tax code.


Who are the people who are exporting jobs overseas?
The corporations. They are forced to because of tax codes and regulations. They can no longer compete making the products here.

[SnakeBoy]

By not driving us even further into debt that will eventually have to be paid, so an indirect benefit to the people.

100 billion a year on a 1.1+ trillion dollar deficit...sure we won't go even futher into debt lol.

[SnakeBoy]

Really? Are you going to suggest the debt problem can only be solved on the spending side? The consensus is we need $4t debt reduction over 10 years . This gets us 1/4 of the way.

Never suggested that. Spending cuts plus tax increases (including the middle class) are what I have said in other threads. We can start with the rich and when that doesn't solve any problems maybe someone will have the balls to make the middle class pay their fair share.

[Wild Cobra]

Never suggested that. Spending cuts plus tax increases (including the middle class) are what I have said in other threads. We can start with the rich and when that doesn't solve any problems maybe someone will have the balls to make the middle class pay their fair share.
That's just it. If we are going to increase taxes, it isn't going to do shit unless we cause equal suffering at all tax levels. There just aren't enough rich to matter. You could confiscate all their wealth, and what would that accomplish?

[baseline bum]

100 billion a year on a 1.1+ trillion dollar deficit...sure we won't go even futher into debt lol.

lol those tax cuts not making a difference, epsecially when Romney wanted to extend them even farther and wipe capital gains to zero while increasing military spending to hell

[Wild Cobra]

lol those tax cuts not making a difference, epsecially when Romney wanted to extend them even farther and wipe capital gains to zero while increasing military spending to hell
I don't recall seeing that.

Link please.

[baseline bum]

http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8514

[Wild Cobra]

http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8514
That link does not say what you did.

No wonder I didn't see it. It doesn't exist.

[baseline bum]

Not my faullt you can't read.

[Wild Cobra]

Not my faullt you can't read.
Then quote the relevant passage. Where does Romney say that?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He took Paul 'Path to Prosperity' Ryan as his running mate and you are asking for proof that he was going along with GOP budget plans?

Clueless and dumb. I mean he kept on talking about how we needed more ships, planes and really expensive shit and partnered with the guy who writes the GOP budget proposal.

I guess you are waiting on the transcripts.