Uh-oh. Middle class tax HIKE on the way?

[Greedo 13]

plays out? and when you're losing more to the gov't in taxes you'll say: why didn't anyone stop ths?!

 

Doesn't there have to be a bill raising taxes on the middle class for there to be something to "stop"?

 

However, raising taxes more often than not only decreases revenue. So raising taxes is the worst idea, if the goal is to bring in more tax money. Upping the age on SS will be tough to sell, but I am on the fence on that. Cutting seems insane. You can't hardly live on SS now, so cutting benefits doesn't sound particularly reasonable.

 

It really pisses me off to see these focks talk about cutting benefits to SS while they won't even consider cutting other things, like foreign aid and freebies to illegal aliens. We always here the dems talk about how important education and SS is, and they may be right. However, when things start to get tough, like in California, the first thing they talk about cutting is education and benefits for the poor. It's easy to see where their priorities are. Bow down to the foreigners and illegals. Fock the American people who have worked their whole lives for this country. Outrageous.

 

Funny how everyone wants to "cut spending" unless it's a program they like. It explains why it's so hard to cut spending.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Funny how everyone wants to "cut spending" unless it's a program they like. It explains why it's so hard to cut spending.

 

If we cut eliminate spending on everything not authorized by the Constitution we would have a massive surplus.

[Greedo 13]

You'd never get elected with that strategy, nor would anyone else.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You'd never get elected with that strategy, nor would anyone else.

 

I would get my vote, or should I say anyone who ran on that platform would get my vote

[gocolts 300]

Doesn't there have to be a bill raising taxes on the middle class for there to be something to "stop"?

Funny how everyone wants to "cut spending" unless it's a program they like. It explains why it's so hard to cut spending.

That may be the case with some, not me though. This free/universal health care would probably benefit me personally more than most here(Financially). I am disabled and make less than 15K a year. My prescription drugs cost me hundreds a month. It is focking killing me. I still do not want this health care crap to pass. I am not against reform either, just the type of reform being tossed around by Obama's administration. I could go on all day, but hopefully you get the idea of what I am trying to say. This would literally save me hundreds of dollars a month.

 

What I was trying to say, which I did a poor job of evidently, is that when they start talking about cuts needing to be done, you don't START with the seniors and poor. Not that they are completely exempt either. I think you should start with things like free stuff to illegals or giving truck loads of money to other countries. I mean seriously, if we are in so much trouble financially, how can they keep on giving away money and aid to all these other countries?? Should we not at least take care of our own before we take care of the rest of the world. I just can't seem to comprehend this idea of cutting seniors SS checks while giving illegals and foreign countries money. Help me Greedo.

[posty 2,304]

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis...le-class-taxes/

 

5 reasons why Obama will hike middle-class taxes

by: James Pethokoukis

 

C’mon, how about some Walter Mondalesque candor from the Obama White House on taxes? Yes, yes, it was 25 years ago this summer that the Democratic presidential candidate self-immolated on the issue at his party’s convention in San Francisco. But surely Americans have become more urbane and sophisticated since then as to what makes for sound economic policy, oui?

 

Nope. If you had any doubt that higher taxes are still poisonous policy in center-right America, all you had to do was listen to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday. He briskly and precisely walked back the White House from the ambiguous statements made by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers on the Sunday chat shows. “I am reiterating the president’s clear commitment in the clearest terms possible that he’s not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year,” Gibbs said.

 

But what’s so clear, Mr. Gibbs? “Commitment” in this context is a schemer’s word, the much-weaker-yet-more-conniving sibling of “guarantee.” Did Broadway Joe express a mushy “clear commitment” to winning the 1969 Super Bowl? Clearly not. In any event, feel free to ignore Gibbs or any other White Housespinmeister who gives the impression that President Obama raising middle-class taxes would be the equivalent of playing himself in a Hollywood biopic — so unlikely as to be fanciful. It’s not and here’s why it will happen eventually:

 

1) Obama knows the budget math doesn’t work. Put aside today’s budget mess. It’s gospel among center-left wonks (the kind of folks who give Obama economic advice) that structural government spending as a percentage of GDP is headed sharply higher over the long term because of entitlements — and there’s little that can be done about it. The ratio has been around 20 percent or so the past few decades, and number crunchers forecast a sharp rise to 25 percent (best case scenario) to 30 percent (worst case) of GDP over the next few decades. Tax revenues typically hover around 18 percent of GDP. That gap — representing $500 billion to $1 trillion a year — will need to be closed or else cause economic chaos. The possible answers: a) less spending, higher tax revenues from higher growth, or c) higher tax revenues from higher rates on the non-wealthy. Oh, and the wonks are convinced “a” is a political impossibility and “b” an economic one. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think.

 

2) Obama seems to prefer tax hikes to spending cuts. Reduced future healthcare spending needs to be a huge part of the budget solution, and ObamaCare doesn’t make the grade at this point. Right now the various Obamacrat plans actually make things worse by failing to “bend the curve.” What’s more, Obama has proposed nothing as president to make Social Security solvent. And during the campaign, his preferred fix was higher payroll taxes rather than commonsense measures like extending the retirement age or changing how benefits are calculated. Of course, Obama has also proposed raising income, investment, corporate and energy taxes. Cut spending or raise taxes – for Obama it’s an easy pick, unfortunately.

 

3) Obama has already tried raising taxes. Let’s, for the sake of argument, ignore the increased federal cigarette tax that would certainly seem to be a violation of Obama’s tax pledge. Call it a misdemeanor offense. But what about his cap-and-trade proposal, a de facto energy tax on everyone? Before the plan was modified in the House, the White House expected the plan to bring in some $80 billion a year from 2012 to 2019 by auctioning off carbon emission permits (probably to pay for healthcare reform). And making energy more costly is as about as broad-based a tax as you can get.

 

4) Obama’s advisers are for higher taxes. Let’s review, for example, what White House economic adviser and guru Larry Summers said on Sunday about tax hikes: “There is a lot that can happen over time. It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what.” Indeed, Summers won’t rule it out because he thinks all the Bush tax cuts need to go, not just the ones for so-called rich folks. Here is Summers from earlier this year on Meet the Press when he put no qualifiers on letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010: “I don’t think there’s any question they have to be repealed. The country can’t afford them for the long run. … They can’t be, they can’t be part of the long-run budget picture.” Not for anyone, it seems.

 

5) Obama doesn’t seem to think high taxes are harmful. Think about this: Not only was the top income tax rate a stratospheric 70 percent when President Reagan took office in1981, the tax code was not indexed to inflation. A lethal combo for economic growth. But here’s what Obama wrote about the Reagan tax cuts in The Audacity of Hope: “The high marginal tax rates that existed when Reagan took office may not have curbed incentives to work or invest, but they did distort investment decisions — and did lead to the wasteful industry of setting up tax shelters.” That’s it! Heavens, if Obama doesn’t think the pre-Reagan tax code wasn’t a disincentive to working, saving and investing, is there any tax system that he would find anti-growth?

 

Bottom line: The belief in the need for higher, European-style taxes (like a VAT) fills the policy cloud that surrounds Obama. It’s hard to overstate this. It’s right up there with global warming. Obama knows he faces a looming fiscal crisis and higher taxes will be his weapon of choice. To paraphrase Mondale, “Obama will raise middle-class taxes. He won’t tell you (yet). I just did.

[NewbieJr 540]

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis...le-class-taxes/

 

5 reasons why Obama will hike middle-class taxes

by: James Pethokoukis

 

C’mon, how about some Walter Mondalesque candor from the Obama White House on taxes? Yes, yes, it was 25 years ago this summer that the Democratic presidential candidate self-immolated on the issue at his party’s convention in San Francisco. But surely Americans have become more urbane and sophisticated since then as to what makes for sound economic policy, oui?

 

Nope. If you had any doubt that higher taxes are still poisonous policy in center-right America, all you had to do was listen to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday. He briskly and precisely walked back the White House from the ambiguous statements made by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers on the Sunday chat shows. “I am reiterating the president’s clear commitment in the clearest terms possible that he’s not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year,” Gibbs said.

 

But what’s so clear, Mr. Gibbs? “Commitment” in this context is a schemer’s word, the much-weaker-yet-more-conniving sibling of “guarantee.” Did Broadway Joe express a mushy “clear commitment” to winning the 1969 Super Bowl? Clearly not. In any event, feel free to ignore Gibbs or any other White Housespinmeister who gives the impression that President Obama raising middle-class taxes would be the equivalent of playing himself in a Hollywood biopic — so unlikely as to be fanciful. It’s not and here’s why it will happen eventually:

 

1) Obama knows the budget math doesn’t work. Put aside today’s budget mess. It’s gospel among center-left wonks (the kind of folks who give Obama economic advice) that structural government spending as a percentage of GDP is headed sharply higher over the long term because of entitlements — and there’s little that can be done about it. The ratio has been around 20 percent or so the past few decades, and number crunchers forecast a sharp rise to 25 percent (best case scenario) to 30 percent (worst case) of GDP over the next few decades. Tax revenues typically hover around 18 percent of GDP. That gap — representing $500 billion to $1 trillion a year — will need to be closed or else cause economic chaos. The possible answers: a) less spending, higher tax revenues from higher growth, or c) higher tax revenues from higher rates on the non-wealthy. Oh, and the wonks are convinced “a” is a political impossibility and “b” an economic one. They’re wrong, but that’s what they think.

 

2) Obama seems to prefer tax hikes to spending cuts. Reduced future healthcare spending needs to be a huge part of the budget solution, and ObamaCare doesn’t make the grade at this point. Right now the various Obamacrat plans actually make things worse by failing to “bend the curve.” What’s more, Obama has proposed nothing as president to make Social Security solvent. And during the campaign, his preferred fix was higher payroll taxes rather than commonsense measures like extending the retirement age or changing how benefits are calculated. Of course, Obama has also proposed raising income, investment, corporate and energy taxes. Cut spending or raise taxes – for Obama it’s an easy pick, unfortunately.

 

3) Obama has already tried raising taxes. Let’s, for the sake of argument, ignore the increased federal cigarette tax that would certainly seem to be a violation of Obama’s tax pledge. Call it a misdemeanor offense. But what about his cap-and-trade proposal, a de facto energy tax on everyone? Before the plan was modified in the House, the White House expected the plan to bring in some $80 billion a year from 2012 to 2019 by auctioning off carbon emission permits (probably to pay for healthcare reform). And making energy more costly is as about as broad-based a tax as you can get.

 

4) Obama’s advisers are for higher taxes. Let’s review, for example, what White House economic adviser and guru Larry Summers said on Sunday about tax hikes: “There is a lot that can happen over time. It is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what.” Indeed, Summers won’t rule it out because he thinks all the Bush tax cuts need to go, not just the ones for so-called rich folks. Here is Summers from earlier this year on Meet the Press when he put no qualifiers on letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010: “I don’t think there’s any question they have to be repealed. The country can’t afford them for the long run. … They can’t be, they can’t be part of the long-run budget picture.” Not for anyone, it seems.

 

5) Obama doesn’t seem to think high taxes are harmful. Think about this: Not only was the top income tax rate a stratospheric 70 percent when President Reagan took office in1981, the tax code was not indexed to inflation. A lethal combo for economic growth. But here’s what Obama wrote about the Reagan tax cuts in The Audacity of Hope: “The high marginal tax rates that existed when Reagan took office may not have curbed incentives to work or invest, but they did distort investment decisions — and did lead to the wasteful industry of setting up tax shelters.” That’s it! Heavens, if Obama doesn’t think the pre-Reagan tax code wasn’t a disincentive to working, saving and investing, is there any tax system that he would find anti-growth?

 

Bottom line: The belief in the need for higher, European-style taxes (like a VAT) fills the policy cloud that surrounds Obama. It’s hard to overstate this. It’s right up there with global warming. Obama knows he faces a looming fiscal crisis and higher taxes will be his weapon of choice. To paraphrase Mondale, “Obama will raise middle-class taxes. He won’t tell you (yet). I just did.

Nice work, posty. That must have taken you forever to type out.

[Mungwater 588]

Nice work, posty. That must have taken you forever to type out.

 

Hey its hard work to google "Obama raises middle income taxes" and cut/copy a blog.

[Greedo 13]

That may be the case with some, not me though. This free/universal health care would probably benefit me personally more than most here(Financially). I am disabled and make less than 15K a year. My prescription drugs cost me hundreds a month. It is focking killing me. I still do not want this health care crap to pass. I am not against reform either, just the type of reform being tossed around by Obama's administration. I could go on all day, but hopefully you get the idea of what I am trying to say. This would literally save me hundreds of dollars a month.

 

What I was trying to say, which I did a poor job of evidently, is that when they start talking about cuts needing to be done, you don't START with the seniors and poor. Not that they are completely exempt either. I think you should start with things like free stuff to illegals or giving truck loads of money to other countries. I mean seriously, if we are in so much trouble financially, how can they keep on giving away money and aid to all these other countries?? Should we not at least take care of our own before we take care of the rest of the world. I just can't seem to comprehend this idea of cutting seniors SS checks while giving illegals and foreign countries money. Help me Greedo.

 

Understood, colts. There really are plenty of places to cut that don't impact the poor and the aged. But all those types of cuts combined won't address the debt like cuts to the big 3 will.

 

I also suspect that (maybe not on this board) you'll find that if we cut all $ going to other countries, for example, you'll have lots of folks howling about that for some reason or another, too. Everyone seems to have their pet spending package.

 

Bottom line: The belief in the need for higher, European-style taxes (like a VAT) fills the policy cloud that surrounds Obama. It’s hard to overstate this. It’s right up there with global warming. Obama knows he faces a looming fiscal crisis and higher taxes will be his weapon of choice. To paraphrase Mondale, “Obama will raise middle-class taxes. He won’t tell you (yet). I just did.

 

It would have been interesting for you to have posted Greenspan's view of VAT tax, the only real way to raise taxes without really injuring the economy.

 

I'd be interested to know, posty, if you think we can eliminate the debt without increasing taxes. If so, how?

[posty 2,304]

I'd be interested to know, posty, if you think we can eliminate the debt without increasing taxes. If so, how?

 

You can't tax a country into prosperity...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'd be interested to know, posty, if you think we can eliminate the debt without increasing taxes. If so, how?

 

That's easy. ELIMINATE all spending not authorized by the Constitution of The United States.

[MDC 5,931]

You can't tax a country into prosperity...

 

No, but if lower taxes always = higher federal revenue we might as well just eliminate taxes altogether and watch the cash roll in, right?

 

At some point you've got to pay the bills. No President before The Retard cut taxes in a time of war. That's a big reason why he nearly doubled the federal debt in eight years.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That's a big reason why he nearly doubled the federal debt in eight years.

 

 

Bush was a fukking slacker. Obama is gonna do that in half the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOPE & CHANGE BAYBEE!

[shake_a_leg 0]

plays out? and when you're losing more to the gov't in taxes you'll say: why didn't anyone stop ths?!

 

 

Nah. I won't be saying that. I'm not filthy stinkin rich like the rest of the people on this bored apparently are....

 

 

 

I'll be

[shake_a_leg 0]

Obama has already broken his promise not to raise taxes on those making less than 250k. This would just be more blatant.

 

 

When did this happen? Cap and Trade? Tobacco tax?

 

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06...-per-household/

 

A $175 increase in annual household energy bills by 2020?

$16 a month increase over the next 11 years?

So basically my total energy costs will go up $1.38 a month every month for the next 11 years?

 

Since it's worded as "energy" I would assume this means a total increase between my electric bill AND gas bill. So if my math is right, 69 cents a month each. Damn, Obama...stick it to me a little harder.

 

 

11 years ago I paid $24 a month for basic cable TV. $10 for internet and $22 a month for a landline phone....$56 a month.

My TV/Net/Phone bundle this month was $134.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

When did this happen? Cap and Trade? Tobacco tax?

 

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06...-per-household/

 

A $175 increase in annual household energy bills by 2020?

$16 a month increase over the next 11 years?

So basically my total energy costs will go up $1.38 a month every month for the next 11 years?

 

Since it's worded as "energy" I would assume this means a total increase between my electric bill AND gas bill. So if my math is right, 69 cents a month each. Damn, Obama...stick it to me a little harder.

11 years ago I paid $24 a month for basic cable TV. $10 for internet and $22 a month for a landline phone....$56 a month.

My TV/Net/Phone bundle this month was $134.

 

What part of "NOT ANY OF YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP" confuses you?

[MDC 5,931]

Bush was a fukking slacker. Obama is gonna do that in half the time.

 

Bush increased the federal debt by more than $5 trillion and left a deficit of about $1.5 trillion.

 

Nobody on earth could increase spending like your personal Jesus Bush, aka Spendy McSpendalot.

 

But Obama is a Dem, so you cry.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Bush increased the federal debt by more than $5 trillion and left a deficit of about $1.5 trillion.

 

Link?

[MDC 5,931]

Link?

 

Link

 

You'll notice the federal debt is around $5.6 trillion in September 2000 and more than $10 trillion in September 2008.

 

Bush projected a nearly $500 billion deficit for FY09 (link), which didn't include $700 billion more in bank bailouts (link) or another $85 billion in supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since Bush never bothered to fully fund them as a part of his budget (link).

 

So at bare minimum we're looking at a Bush deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link

 

You'll notice the federal debt is around $5.6 trillion in September 2000 and more than $10 trillion in September 2008.

 

Bush projected a nearly $500 billion deficit for FY09 (link), which didn't include $700 billion more in bank bailouts (link) or another $85 billion in supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since Bush never bothered to fully fund them as a part of his budget (link).

 

So at bare minimum we're looking at a Bush deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion.

 

The CBO disagrees with MDC:

 

The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal deficit for fiscal 2008 (which ends September 30) at $407 billion for fiscal 2008

[gocolts 300]

Bush increased the federal debt by more than $5 trillion and left a deficit of about $1.5 trillion.

 

Nobody on earth could increase spending like your personal Jesus Bush, aka Spendy McSpendalot.

 

But Obama is a Dem, so you cry.

Funny how you think Bush sucked so bad(And he did suck bad) and Obama is great even though Obama has simply doubled down on most of Bush's crap. For you to even suggest that ANYONE would only like someone based on which party they are in is about as outrageous as you can get.

[MDC 5,931]

The CBO disagrees with MDC:

 

You got your links. It's not my fault if you're going to bury your head in the sand and sob like a woman.

[MDC 5,931]

Funny how you think Bush sucked so bad(And he did suck bad) and Obama is great even though Obama has simply doubled down on most of Bush's crap. For you to even suggest that ANYONE would only like someone based on which party they are in is about as outrageous as you can get.

 

But Obama didn't "double down" on Bush's crap, unless you think he's going to pass more than a trillion in economic stimulus and bailouts per year (I don't).

 

And after eight years of defending Bush while he doubled the entire national debt, most of the GOP types here are acting like hysterical old women all of a sudden.

 

Especially Whiner Pilot, the single biggest Bush butt boy on the entire forearm.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You got your links. It's not my fault if you're going to bury your head in the sand and sob like a woman.

 

And my CBO numbers disputed your links. Keep sukking Obama's cack for running up the debt faster than the evil Bush.

[gocolts 300]

But Obama didn't "double down" on Bush's crap, unless you think he's going to pass more than a trillion in economic stimulus and bailouts per year (I don't).

 

And after eight years of defending Bush while he doubled the entire national debt, most of the GOP types here are acting like hysterical old women all of a sudden.

 

Especially Whiner Pilot, the single biggest Bush butt boy on the entire forearm.

Not really. That is just you being uninformed. Plenty of conservatives complained about the crap Bush did. There were lots of complaints about Bush's spending for example. I am just guessing you were one of them that complained as well. But suddenly it's fine to spend since it's Obama. Never mind how folks such as yourself told us how Bush was in bed with big business only to see a focking democrat give hundreds of billions to BIG BUSINESS.

[NewbieJr 540]

Not really. That is just you being uninformed. Plenty of conservatives complained about the crap Bush did. There were lots of complaints about Bush's spending for example. I am just guessing you were one of them that complained as well. But suddenly it's fine to spend since it's Obama. Never mind how folks such as yourself told us how Bush was in bed with big business only to see a focking democrat give hundreds of billions to BIG BUSINESS.

Colts, I would love to see a link where RP complained of Bush's spending.

[Frank M 181]

If we cut eliminate spending on everything not authorized by the Constitution we would have a massive surplus.

 

 

And when you don't get your Social Security check and Medicare when you retire, you'll be b1tching about how you paid into it your whole life.

 

Institute the Fair Tax and we would have a massive surplus.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And when you don't get your Social Security check and Medicare when you retire, you'll be b1tching about how you paid into it your whole life.

 

Institute the Fair Tax and we would have a massive surplus.

 

Stop taking those two things out of my check every week and you won't hear a peep out of me when I retire. I'll invest it on my own, at least that would keep the clowns in DC from spending it instead of putting it in a "lock box".

 

Institute the Fair Tax and it will all be good.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Bush increased the federal debt by more than $5 trillion and left a deficit of about $1.5 trillion.

 

Nobody on earth could increase spending like your personal Jesus Bush, aka Spendy McSpendalot.

 

But Obama is a Dem, so you cry.

 

Umm...Obama already is increasing spending like that.

[gocolts 300]

But Obama didn't "double down" on Bush's crap, unless you think he's going to pass more than a trillion in economic stimulus and bailouts per year (I don't).

 

And after eight years of defending Bush while he doubled the entire national debt, most of the GOP types here are acting like hysterical old women all of a sudden.

 

Especially Whiner Pilot, the single biggest Bush butt boy on the entire forearm.

 

 

Not really. That is just you being uninformed. Plenty of conservatives complained about the crap Bush did. There were lots of complaints about Bush's spending for example. I am just guessing you were one of them that complained as well. But suddenly it's fine to spend since it's Obama. Never mind how folks such as yourself told us how Bush was in bed with big business only to see a focking democrat give hundreds of billions to BIG BUSINESS.

 

 

Colts, I would love to see a link where RP complained of Bush's spending.

Nobody was talking about just RP. See the part in bold. RP is not the only GOP type here.

[Greedo 13]

You can't tax a country into prosperity...

 

This is not an answer. No ideas? How do you eliminate debt without increasing revenue?

 

I've seen RPs answer, and answered him back. He cannot get his request passed in congress, even if it were 100% GOP.

 

Example: in RPs world, there would be no public utilities, no garbage truck pickup, no SS and medicare, just for starters. How many votes do you think RP has in congress to pass such a bill?

 

I'm talking about a real answer. Something that can be passed. You can whine, but try getting something passed in DC when you've got to balance 536 individuals' priorities.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This is not an answer. No ideas? How do you eliminate debt without increasing revenue?

 

I've seen RPs answer, and answered him back. He cannot get his request passed in congress, even if it were 100% GOP.

 

Example: in RPs world, there would be no public utilities, no garbage truck pickup, no SS and medicare, just for starters. How many votes do you think RP has in congress to pass such a bill?

 

I'm talking about a real answer. Something that can be passed. You can whine, but try getting something passed in DC when you've got to balance 536 individuals' priorities.

 

Utilities are owned by private companies, garbage pick up is a local isse, SS is a financial disaster.....a ponzi scheme whose day of reckoning is fast approaching. If you think it will be there for you when you retire all I can do is laugh at you. Fraud and abuse in Medicare is rampant (see Obama's promise to pay for his Socialist scheme by cutting fraud and abuse in Medicare) yet you think we should turn 20% of the economy over to these clowns.

 

The qeustion was how do we balance the budget. I gave the best answer: Do only what the Constitution allows. No way they are gonna give up that kind of power, but if done the budget would not be an issue.

[Greedo 13]

I certainly don't think SS will be around for me - probably not medicare either. Some utilities are private.

 

I understand what you're saying about the budget, I really do. But we live on earth, and we need a realistic answer. You can't accomplish what you're recommending. If you were in office, what would you do that could get passed?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I certainly don't think SS will be around for me - probably not medicare either. Some utilities are private.

 

I understand what you're saying about the budget, I really do. But we live on earth, and we need a realistic answer. You can't accomplish what you're recommending. If you were in office, what would you do that could get passed?

 

If I were President I wouldn't sign a single fukking bill unless 100% was Constitutionally called for. Obviously, the Gubmint would come to a screaching halt, which would be positive by-product.