Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Wants To Raise Taxes by $26 Trillion 

What she and Bernie Sanders are proposing is nothing short of a wholesale transformation of the size and scope of government.


One of the challenges presented by the leftward turn in the Democratic presidential primary race is effectively capturing the scale of the tax and spending proposals the leading candidates have put forth. The numbers regularly stretch into the trillions, or even multiple tens of trillions. To put that in contrast, a decade ago, early drafts of the health law that became Obamacare were viewed as pushing the boundaries of political acceptability because they ran just over $1 trillion over a decade. A trillion dollars! Even for Washington, that was a lot of money, an expansion of the size of government large enough to give some Democrats pause. 

Today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) says his Medicare for All plan would cost $30 or $40 trillion over 10 years. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has proposed $2.75 trillion worth of education policy reforms, and her notion that she could implement a single-payer health care system with just—"just"—$20 trillion in new federal spending is viewed by many as unrealistically low

There is an element of unreality to these ideas, a sense in which they are meant as symbols and signifiers rather than practical, concrete agenda items. As Kate McKinnon's parody version of Elizabeth Warren said on Saturday Night Live this weekend, responding to a question about Medicare for All's enormous price tag, "When the numbers are this big, they're just pretend." 

And yet—these are, in fact, real and nominally serious proposals from actual candidates who are actually running for president. So it is worth putting them in perspective, not only on their own, but in context with each other. 

Sanders has proposed a whopping $97.5 trillion worth of new government spending over the next decade, according to an estimate by the Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl. To pay for all that spending, Sanders would presumably give speeches about how we don't need to pay for all that spending. But he would also raise taxes by about $23 trillion over the same time frame. The federal government expects to raise roughly $3.6 trillion in tax revenue this year, and spend about $1 trillion more than that (hence our trillion-dollar budget deficit). The Sanders agenda, if enacted in full, would dramatically increase the tax burden Americans are expected to shoulder, and, at the same time, add about $90 trillion to federal deficits. The Sanders agenda manages to simultaneously be absurdly, almost comically unrealistic and economically catastrophic. 

And then there is Warren and her plans, many of which involve raising taxes. Warren has not proposed quite as much new spending as Sanders, but she has proposed even more in the way of new taxation. All together, Warren would raise taxes by $26.3 trillion, according to a new report by Nicole Kaeding of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Warren would supplement that by freeing up some currently untaxed dollars for taxation and increasing tax enforcement, which she claims would raise another $2.3 trillion. If Warren somehow managed to pass her entire wish list, the result would be a 63 percent increase in expected federal revenues over the next 10 years, according to Kaeding. 

Over that same time, total individual and corporate income tax revenues are projected to be about $26.8 trillion. "In other words," Kaeding writes, "the total revenue effects of Warren's proposals would be similar to a plan in which every individual and corporate tax bill was doubled outright." Warren's plans would amount to a historically unprecedented increase in the size and scale of government. 

Naturally, there are various technical problems with Warren's plans that the headline numbers don't fully capture. Her wealth tax almost certainly wouldn't raise as much money as she hopes. The grab bag of taxes she has proposed were not designed to function in tandem, and the complex interactions between them would probably lower total revenue, which would lead to larger deficits without offsetting spending cuts. Warren has plans for all sorts of new taxes, but not for how to make them all work together. 

Wonky quibbles aside, however, it is valuable to simply consider the bigger picture. The foundation of Warren's candidacy is her vast policy agenda—her plans for everything. But enacting each and every one of her plans would result, at minimum, in a profound transformation of the American economy, pulling tens of trillions of dollars out of the private sector and putting that money under the control of the federal government. The full Warren agenda would empower bureaucrats and politicians, and it would almost certainly drag down the nation's economy, affecting jobs and livelihoods for millions of Americans, many of whom would not be billionaires or even millionaires. And while Warren claims not to tax the middle class directly, she only avoids doing so through tortured workarounds that would inevitably hit middle-class paychecks. 

One might argue, somewhat reasonably, that Warren's agenda is more aspirational than practical, that it's a sellable political vision, not legislative text, and that even if Democrats somehow sweep Congress and the White House next year, it's unlikely to pass in full, or even in large part. 

Looked at this way, the Warren agenda (and in a different way, the Sanders agenda) is a kind of joke, a pin-up board of preposterously big-ticket proposals that rely on made-up numbers to pay for made-up programs that, like most games of make-believe, haven't been precision engineered to function in reality, because they aren't really expected to ever become law. There is a sense in which Warren, like her SNL counterpart, isn't sweating the size of the numbers involved because, well, it's all pretend. 

Yet there is another sense in which the fanciful ambitions of Warren's agenda aren't funny at all, but something rather more terrifying. Because even if they do not represent a politically likely outcome, they do represent a very real worldview, a belief that the government both can and should be operating at a size and scale far beyond any precedent in the nation's history. The best way to understand Warren's tax agenda, then, may not be as a series of large numbers, but as a wholesale transformation of American life. 

NEXT: Nobody Knows What Television Is Anymore

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. America’s Mother-In-Law and Crazy Bernie do not have a prayer of getting their fantasies through Congress, let alone the judiciary. Nor should it.

    How on earth could anyone support EXPANDING the size of federal government?!

    1. Welcome to America.

    2. Atlas Shrugged has come to life. There are more and more people who take more out of the system than they put in. Why wouldn’t a moocher want more government?

      1. It does seem like debt is not a concern anymore. In some abstract way it seems to be, in that people do argue over the amount. Even that though seems kind of meaningless.

        I increasingly see people openly state that debt doesn’t matter at all. If that is the common wisdom, then debt spending to solve ever social ill becomes entirely reasonable. That seems to be the direction I’m seeing popular discourse going. We will see what happens.

        1. Good to see you back BUCS.

          It’s been pretty clear since the virtual demise of the original Tea Party movement that there is no place in modern government for restraint. Mainstream Republicans seem to be happy taxing future generations with reckless spending. All Democrats seem to be happy taxing every single person with reckless spending. It’s all a game to raise funds, get votes, and make money. With very few exceptions, those that get to keep playing the game are the ones that are best at convincing people to fund their recklessness with more debt.

          In other words, who wouldn’t vote for someone to give them free stuff? Warren’s plan is to make it seem like fewer and fewer people (the extremely rich) get to fund the free stuff for more and more people through countless programs. The reality is that everyone pays, both now and in the future. It’s not that the majority think that debt doesn’t matter. It’s that the majority seem to think someone else is going to pay for it, when in reality we all pay.

        2. The debt is less painful now because interest rates are so low. 2 percent of 23 trillion is 460 billion a year. When rates hit 5 percent again the interest service will be over a trillion dollars per year, and all the new borrowing will go to paying interest.

          And that’s BEFORE Warren/Sanders/Yang get their hands on the spigots. The best way out of the debt mess is inflation (to make the 23 trillion less significant), but that brings short term pain in higher interest payments.

        3. I kind of thought you were dead BUCS, glad that’s not the case ^_^

        4. If debt doesn’t matter at all, then why is it important how much people pay in taxes? Set all tax rates to zero and just pay for government with debt.

    3. “How on earth could anyone support EXPANDING the size of federal government?!”

      As a Koch / Reason left-libertarian, it’s not so much that I want a bigger government. It’s that I’m willing to accept it as a trade-off, provided it comes with more immigration.

      1. LOL
        left-libertarian….. Progressetarian?

    4. Medicare is 65% short of money needed to pay promised benefits per the government’s own Trustee Report. It is insurance fraud to current workers. The VA problems have been widely reported. Medicaid is so bad that health outcome are no better than those that have no insurance.
      On that resume the government should be fired from healthcare not given more control.

      1. Control group studies on the benefits of Medicaid like that done on the Oregon expansion are racist or something.

      2. they’ve just never been funded fully, due to all the austerity

        1. Ha, yeah. Every time I hear some european politico tossing around “austerity” as some kind of satanic bargain, I can’t help but reflect that their “austerity” is the status quo in the US, and we still think the government spends way too much money.

          1. European “Austerity” = Raise taxes.

    5. I’m sure that when Tony and his crew arrive they’ll explain it to you. In fact, they’ll tell you that it’s crazy to NOT support expanding the size of federal government.

    6. We thought that about the ACA. Don’t trust that passing stupid legislation is impossible or that the courts will protect the country from it.

    7. If you want to live the Nordic Race lifestyle, you need to “tax and spend” like the Nordics.

      America is “borrowing and spending” to maintain the Northern European lifestyle, yet is taxing like the small government paradise of Somalia.

      Congressional Research Service – Tax Rates and Economic Growth

      • 1950-1970 – Average Top Marginal Income Tax Rate: 84.8%, Rate of Growth in Real GDP: 3.86%, Rate of Growth in Real Net Fixed Investment: 0.93%

      • 1971-1986 – Average Top Marginal Income Tax Rate: 51.8%, Rate of Growth in Real GDP: 2.94%, Rate of Growth in Real Net Fixed Investment: 0.32%

      • 1987-2010 – Average Top Marginal Income Tax Rate: 36.4%, Rate of Growth in Real GDP: 2.5%, Rate of Growth in Real Net Fixed Investment: 0.23%

      1. America has the largest and most expensive government in the history of humanity. Taxes are not low.

      2. And yet they’ve only ever managed to pull in an average of 18% GDP in tax “revenue”.

        1. ^^^THIS

        2. Hauser’s law will get you every time.

      3. In that current spending removes goods and services from the current market, the people are already “taxed” in that they cannot buy what they could have if the government hadn’t spent so much (stolen so many goods and services from the market).

        So, in reality, government spending is never really pushed off onto future generations. It’s always suffered in the short term.

      4. Kuni, you’re looking at the wrong end of the tax structure.

        1950. 80% of people paid taxes
        1980. 65% paid taxes
        2019 53% pay taxes


        We have too many parasites.

      5. The whole Nordic/Socialist thing is a pure myth….Those nations have high taxes, but they also have much less Govt. interference in their economies. They have much more economic freedom, truly free markets, they have no minimum wage laws & their welfare state is not a permanent entrenched one like ours!….see below:


      6. If you want to relive the “glory years” of the 1950s and 1960s economy, then we will need to bomb the crap out of the rest of the developed world. It’s why we had such high growth rates during that time. Do you advocate that? If not, you need to put that time period out of your mind. Also, as stated above, even when top marginal tax rates were in the stratosphere, we still took in roughly the same amount of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP as we do now. You leftists really need to get over 1950-1964. It was a unique time period.

    8. They should be in federal prison, not the US Senate.

  2. There is a name for politicians who want the government to control the economy while allowing private ownership of the means of production through corporations.

    (and it never ends well, even if the trains run on time)

    1. Fascist economics is more based on the idea that society owns the means of production but that the rights to it can be farmed out to private concerns for reasons of efficiency. Those arrangements can be rescinded in times of emergency (emergency as defined by the State). The economic system otherwise known as “corporatism” (the name has nothing to do with corporations, it has to do with the understanding the Nation as a single corporate body).

      1. “Those arrangements can be rescinded in times of emergency (emergency as defined by the State).”

        Hmmm. Sounds like the New Deal to me.

  3. “The full Warren agenda would empower bureaucrats and politicians, and it would almost certainly drag down the nation’s economy, affecting jobs and livelihoods for millions of Americans, many of whom would not be billionaires or even millionaires.”

    This overly pessimistic analysis ignores the positive economic impact of unlimited, unrestricted immigration — a policy the Democratic Party is clearly embracing. Regardless of her taxing and spending proposals, Elizabeth Warren would be far better for the economy than Drumpf has been. Because she would welcome highly skilled doctors and engineers into our country, instead of locking them up in concentration camps.


    1. Exactly! Another Suderman hit piece on that wonderful, warm, and witty Warren.

      We can afford it. After all we are the richest country in the world with the most billionaires, and millionaires, and just ordinary folks with 6-figure incomes. Go for it, Lizzie!!

    2. Warren’s immigration policy is actually more restrictive than Trump’s, though. I realize you’re just a parody account, but if you really were committed to the bit you’d do a little research.

  4. Did Reason’s fever finally break? Multiple articles on the insanity of Democratic desires?!?

    1. When, specifically, have they not been consistent on their disdain for “Medicare for All” or expanding federal revenues?

      1. When did my post say they ever supported medicare for all? Try reading it again.

        1. Maybe I misread. I thought your implication was that Reason hasn’t been consistent on the “insanity of Democratic desires”

          1. I think it is more a comment about how they prefer to report on orange man bad and how this is the time they will finally get him.

            1. Jesus H Christ. For the millionth time, Reason has been incredibly consistent through its entire history in criticising whoever’s in power. It’s basically an obligation of a perpetual opposition party to do so.

              Why the fuck should they treat Trump with kid gloves just because you like him and his fanboys are a bunch of sensitive snowflakes? Fuck off already.

      2. Leo… you there buddy?

    2. I think once the nominee has been chosen, Reason writers will stop being so hyper-critical. Expect most or all of the staff to announce plans to vote for the Democratic candidate in 2020. I’m sure Shikha Dalmia will!

      1. Ah yes, Shitma!

  5. When will the clingers realize that Warren’s socialist and nationalist agenda is the only way forward. When has that combination ever gone wrong?

    1. Said like a trump Karl Marx sycophant.

    2. Now I starting to think he’s just a troll.

      “When has that combination ever gone wrong?” No literate person can be this deliberately ignorant.

      If not, I loathe this individual more than before.

      1. He thinks germany, italy, Cuba, china, and venezuela are just trial runs.

        1. Soviet Fricken Union.

      2. Did you notice that this is Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland not Kirkland?

        1. HA!


          In my defense, I did notice something was a tad askew.

          1. The Babylon Bee had a similar take on that.

      3. “”Now I starting to think he’s just a troll. “”

        Wait, now you are thinking that?

        1. Ha, I didn’t notice until now.

          It’s funny when parody is close to truth.

    3. I see what you did there.

    4. Now do Hihn.

      1. I was waiting for you guys to catch that

      2. Nobody wants to do Hihn.

        1. Hihn does himself so much it does not matter if anyone else does.

          1. His own hands feel disgusted after the fact.

          2. Hihn is to insane to parody, he has the unique ability to take 3 sides of an argument and be wrong every time

            1. And he will prove it to you by linking his own post. Over and over.

            2. Hey Kuckberg, you are not supposed to break character.

            3. Hihn’s so insane that he put himself on his enemies list.

            4. Hihn attacks people who agree with him about as aggressively as he attacks people who disagree with him.

              1. And he wonders why he doesn’t get invited to parties.

                1. I think he has more than enough voices in his head for a decent party already without having to invite any actual people.


        How’d I do?

        1. I hope that doesn’t crash the system.

        2. “How’d I do?”

          Needs more punctuation and (snickering).

    5. I was about to ask whether he was openly operating as a parody at this point (I’ve been gone so long, how the seasons change!!!) but then I saw the letter change.

    6. RALK continues to be an obvious troll. The funny part is that the established morons here take his shit literally and seriously, while somehow believing that OBL is funny, clever, or in any way meaningfully satirical of anything which actually exists.

  6. Anybody else remember Walter Mondale’s campaign promise? Didn’t think so.

    1. OMG! Yes! I do remember that! It was during the debate where he came out and stated he would raise taxes. From that point, the election was over.

      1. Hey, at least he won his home state, so it wasn’t a total landslide.

  7. Trump is the luckiest man on the planet. Who would have guessed such an unpleasant person would be presented with totally insane people as competition.

    1. Yeah, if the Dems insist on nominating a socialist it pretty much guarantees another four years of Trump chaos. Their only realistic options are a fossil and a guy that is married to another guy. From all of those I’d choose Mayor Pete for his intelligence and pragmatism. However, I think an awful lot of people would have a real problem with a gay president.

      Of course, the best option would be a REAL republican of the Goldwater variety. But I’m not sure they exist anymore and the party is unrecognizable from what it used to be. The toadies will never allow a primary challenge to their Apricot God.

      1. You mean a real Republican like Goldwater who received 39% of the vote? The GOP is well on its way to becoming a rural, Southern regional party while the Dems are an urban, coastal party.

        1. This had been said since the mid 90s. One day you’ll be right. Wink wink.

        2. Goldwater was smeared far beyond what even the Donald experienced. ABCBSNBC were criminal in their coverage, NYT, WaPo, etc as well. Anyone remember the girl picking daisies commercial? Un-f-ing-believable.

        3. Presidents aren’t elected by popular vote, though. The real question is whether the blue team is going to retain enough minions in rural areas to ever win another election.

      2. Yeah, if the Dems insist on nominating a socialist it pretty much guarantees another four years of Trump chaos.

        Not just a socialist, but abrasive, run-of-the-mill socialists. Yang, Mayor Pete, and Gabbard are pretty socialist but they’re trailing the pack.

        However, I think an awful lot of people would have a real problem with a gay president.

        I think an awful lot of people would have a real problem with a president who’s made his sexuality a cornerstone of his administration the way Mayor Pete does and it wouldn’t matter if the candidate’s name were Buttigieg, Clinton, Trump, or Hill. People would still (rightly) despise them for it.

        1. He has not made it a cornerstone. It is a simple fact which was never denied or hidden. Clinton and Trump are both sexual predators (denied and hidden, yet proven) and nobody seems to care about that. Why should it bother people that Buttigieg is a monogamous gay? It is simply irrelevant.

          My main problem with him is that he is too religious. I don’t see him anywhere near socialist.

          1. And yeah, I would prefer a true small government, balanced budget Republican that didn’t sell his/her soul to the fanatical/hypocritical Christians.

  8. Know what Elizabeth Warren is? She’s a deceitful person. Even by politics standards. It’s how she’s configured as a human being.

    Campus Reform interviewed the founder of Legal Insurrection and Warren was the main topic:


    1. No Rufus…you got this wrong. America;s Mother-In-Law is 1/1024ths honest. 🙂

      1. ‘I love my mother-in-law’.

        Fred Flintstone.

        1. You know, I used to want Marianne as the nominee. But I’ll tell you what. I’d be just as happy with America’s Mother-In-Law because she is just so batshit crazy and such a pinhead that the electorate will reject her soundly. If Team D seriously wants her out there, my attitude is: by all means, please do so.

          Fauxahontas is a female Adlai Stevenson….a dilettante who masquerades as an intellectual.

        2. I love my mother in law as well.
          She’s been dead 28 years.

    2. It’s how she’s configured as a human being.

      Suggesting she’s a cyborg makes a lot of sense.

  9. “When the numbers are this big, they’re just pretend.”

    Obviously the solution is the nuevo dollar.

    1. Trillion dollar platinum coins in the basement.

      1. Except now they’ll need to be ten trillion dollar coins.

    2. Fake news reporter: But how will you pay for it?
      Warren: We will not carry the one?
      FNR: That’s it?
      Warren: And I will cap the number of ‘Zeros’ to three.
      FNR: Sounds about right. We’ll get on that story for you!

      Democrat reads story at kitchen table.

      Democrat: Sounds a little wonky. This not carrying the one.
      Sensible person at the table: Can’t vote for that, no can do.
      Democrat: Oh yes I will. It’s free!

  10. What a trillion dollars in $100 bills looks like

    1. Very nice. Thanks, Frank!

    2. Lizzie or Bernie or Pete or generic Donkey would light that up like the Joker did!

    3. Yeah. Important to get a visual reminder sometimes of what orders of magnitude really mean.

      1. Right? now imagine 22 of those piles.

  11. How in heavan can Reason write this article and not point out that one of the main ways of taxing for Warren’s plan is to re-channel the money employers are paying toward private health insurance into a government insurance plan. The whole point of that re-channeling is to 1) cover the costs of her health plan, and 2) make people’s net incomes not change. In fact, they would go up because they would no longer pay insurance premiums, co-pays, coinsurance, out-of-network charges, etc.

    I understand there are many issues with Warren’s proposal. Like anything ambitious the first draft is always subject to change. But this is a huge BAD FAITH argument to not point out the obvious.

    1. You mean that the whole thing is obviously a pandering non starter?

    2. re-channel the money employers are paying toward private health insurance into a government insurance plan

      Just because I don’t see any flaws in the plans for your particular perpetual motion machine doesn’t give me any less confidence that there are in fact flaws in your plans. I suspect that the simple law of supply and demand may have something to do with it – the demand for free stuff is always going to exceed the supply and the government is no more efficient at producing free stuff than the private sector.

    3. If you listen to the podcast, Suderman opines that this is unconstitutional since it takes state money and gives it to the Feds. Nevertheless, even with that money they fall trillions short of meeting the requirement of MfA. (Medicare for All)

      More importantly, do you really want a single point of control over your ability to get health care? Do you like monopolies? Imagine any politician you have ever heard of, being in charge of that. Yeah, it makes one very ill. Think the Red Chinese have control, you ain’t seen nuthin!!

      1. I think the most apt analogy is the DMV. Do you want getting healthcare to be like going to the DMV? Me neither.

        Realistically, the problems the DMV has to solve are a hundred times easier to solve than than healthcare issues are. That they manage to make even the simplest task as wildly inefficient as possible doesn’t bode well for whatever government org ends up running healthcare.

    4. “”Warren’s plan is to re-channel the money employers are paying toward private health insurance into a government insurance plan””

      That money is not enough. That’s why we have premiums, deductibles, and copays. Also that applies to working people. What about non-working people and the uninsured.

      Also, grant money and philanthropy props up health care for low income areas.

      1. And what about the illegal aliens that Democrats also want their plan to cover? How much would it cost to cover all of South America, one might ask, and what effect might that have on immigration?

        1. “What about the illegal aliens”

          I you are a wage earner and you don’t think you are paying even if federal or state benefits denied you do not know how medical economics works.

      2. “ That money is not enough.”

        Yup not even close.

        “ Also, grant money and philanthropy props up health care for low income areas.”

        Not even close to enough.

    5. Except her plan requires taxing that additional income people would see since its no longer being deducted from their paycheck for the companies insurance plan. Aka a tax on the middle class and every worker this applies to.

      Maybe you should read her plan closer…

    6. And you’ll still need private insurance if you actually want to see a doctor in a sane amount of time.

      Get up off of your knees.

    7. Workers that have employer provided health insurance often pay part of the premium – and I suppose that will continue (in a way) with the Warren plan, so in theory, take home pay won’t change. Of course, there are lots of small businesses that provide decent wages to their workers, but not health insurance. Warren has some sort of exemption for small employers that don’t provide coverage – but that will prove to be unfair to those that do. Also, the deductibles, co-pays, and coinsurance ratios on employer provided plans differ quite a bit. I live in a small community and the pubic school district is one of the largest employers. All their health insurance plans are high deductible plans – the lowest is $1,500 – and no prescription co-pays kick in until the $1,500 deductible is met. Warren’s coverage will be more generous – so costs will most certainly go up. The current Medicare program does have low administrative costs, but Warren wants us to believe her plan will lower administrative costs even more. I doubt that would happen – and her more generous coverage provisions will likely overwhelm her hoped for overhead reductions. Our current system with its combination of traditional Medicare (a single payer hybrid), employer provided coverage, Medicaid, and the individual insurance plans already spends about $3.2 trillion a year, so the $35-40 trillion estimate for the next ten years isn’t a shock – and I know that’s your point – Warren is re-routing money that we’re already spending. I just don’t have much confidence that a federal takeover of all health care financing will work very well – and even less confidence that Warren’s plans to pay for it all are realistic.

      1. “”Warren is re-routing money that we’re already spending.””

        What about the cost of people that don’t go to a doctor now because they can’t afford it?

    8. if you like your health plan, you can’t keep it?

    9. They covered that last week.

    10. “…Like anything ambitious the first draft is always subject to change…”

      So this is bullshit and it’s gonna get worse?
      Oh, goody.

    11. Under the more modest estimates of leftist think tanks like the Urban Institute, it still adds $2 trillion/year in spending, though as leftists they fail to consider the wonderful efficiencies that are inherent to government programs.

  12. What she and Bernie Sanders are proposing is nothing short of a wholesale transformation of the size and scope of government.

    I believe you’ve severely misunderestimated the scope of their vision. When they talk about a “fundamental transformation”, it’s not just the government they’re talking about, it’s this country and this society and this culture and this species. Capitalism and Western Civilization and individualism and everything they’ve ever accomplished and everything they stand for has got to go. Fundamentally, they hate human beings and they hate that God was too damn stupid to consult them before He went about creating the Universe because they sure as hell wouldn’t have let the place get this untidy if they were in charge.

    1. I know you will want to dismiss this as kooky conspiracy theory thinking…

      But they have not been shy about it. They have both been very explicit that this is their goal.

      1. ‘Fundamental change’ is, apparently, a winning slogan as long as you never really talk about the true extent and form of that change.

        I note plenty of communist uprisings were promised ‘fundamental change’ and now some of them are eating zoo animals out of desperation and most of the rest have tinpot dictators.

        1. Comrade Pooh’s pot is shiny, golden, and filled with honey, thank you very much.

  13. If the Trump team were on the ball (I know, that’s a stretch), they would be saying that the MfA plan makes every doctor, nurse, hospital technician, orderly, etc a government employee. Do you think those medical people would like that? Do you think the rest of us would like that?

    1. Once you label the fruits of someone’s labor a ‘right’ you have endorsed public slavery. Full stop.

      1. Indeed. Yet they continue.

  14. By “taxes”, the writer refers to “income-taxes” — individual and corporate.

    “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” -Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

    Excerpt from Retribution Fever:

    XV. Taxation
    “Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they marveled at him.” -Mark 12:17

    Common sense bears witness that a nation somehow must tax its citizens directly or indirectly in order to provide services minimally required by those citizens — services that only government efficiently and effectively can provide — services such as military defense. Until 1913 with the questionable ratification by the States of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, there had been no federal income tax; yet, the nation had survived and prospered with a stable, sound currency. The federal government supported itself via a variety of means such as tariffs levied upon imported goods. Yes, there were economic ups and downs, but overall the system drove creativity and productivity beyond that of other nations.
    The issue of levying a federal tax upon incomes had been an old one. At the Grand Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, the attendees briefly considered including in the proposed constitution a tax upon incomes. They quickly rejected it as an absurdity. Events since 1913 confirmed their wisdom.
    Politicians of every era always have been hungry for other people’s money. In 1894 ….

    1. Income tax is an absurdity. Define, in 5,000 words or less, what constitutes income. Show your work.

  15. I wonder how much it costs for private health care insurance. It probably grows on some sort of fairy tree or something so it doesn’t cost anything now. Why would anyone want to pay taxes for it when I can get it for free from the employer-provided health care fairy, which costs nothing. I love free shit, you know.

    1. Is that the selling point? “Pay for healthcare in a whole new exciting way: through the IRS!”

      1. Ha!

        Two government agencies (Congress, IRS) with very, very low approval ratings to the rescue!

    2. “…It probably grows on some sort of fairy tree or something so it doesn’t cost anything now…”

      Why do fucking lefty ignoramuses always avoid the point?

  16. As Kate McKinnon’s parody version of Elizabeth Warren said on Saturday Night Live

    McKinnon was also their Hillary impersonator. After the election, she could have done the greatest comedy skit in SNL history. Instead, she gave us a mopey piano recital. (If he had to respond to her, Trump would call her Cop-Out Katie).

    If Warren loses to Trump, she’ll probably slit her wrists on stage.

    1. Don’t tease us. The flood of Donkey tears would drown us all.

      1. That’s why it sucks that the whole seasteading thing didn’t work out.

    2. To be fair, Leonard Cohen had just died. So it was only half a ridiculously over-emotional reaction to the outcome of an election.

      1. And could have been recognized in a musical segment, rather than in the cold open.

  17. All your dollats belong to Crazy Mother-in-Law.

    1. So if Warren is your Crazy Mother-in-Law is Trump the crazy uncle at the Thanksgiving Dinner Table?

  18. Does that woman own a different outfit?

    1. Why does every picture of Warren make it look like she’s struggling to breathe in our atmosphere?

      1. Lizard people have some difficulty breathing in earth atmosphere.

  19. What’s with all the 10 year plans? Shouldn’t these be 4 year plans, or optimistically, 8 year plans? No one gets to be president for 10 years.

    1. I don’t know either. I guess it’s easy for the math.

      Any plan will be more expensive as the years go.

      1. “Any plan will be more expensive as the years go.”

        Why would that be? That certainly didn’t happen with Medicare.

    2. Then when it fails in 10 years, they don’t have to take the blame. It’s those other assholes who didn’t stick to the plan.

    3. The first thing she plans on getting rid of is that pesky constitution thingy!

  20. Caption contest.

    Your tax bill will be this big.

  21. What important to remember is that Senators Warren and Sander reflect the desires of a large number of Americans. They are anxious about the economy and looking for something to relieve the anxiety. Warren and Sanders supply this in term of greater government involvement. Supplying health care, higher education and more child care. This not all together different from President Trump who address anxiety from globalism and changing demographics. Trump remedy is more isolation and racial remedies. It could end up with both sides keying in on anxiety in different ways. And people voting based on who addressed their largest fear.

    1. Fear-mongering among politicians? Well, I never.

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
      H L Mencken

  22. “Elizabeth Warren Wants To Raise Taxes by $26 Trillion.”

    Warren can raise taxes after she kisses my ass on the Statue of Liberty on New Year’s day.

  23. I’m not so good at math. Can anyone explain to me how you raise 23 Trillion in taxes on a country who’s entire GDP is 18.5 Trillion?
    I’ll wait.

    1. It’s 23 trillllllllion over 10 years, so only a measly 15% of GDP.

      A bagatelle!!

  24. If that is the cost they are willing to admit I expect the real number is worse by a factor of two to four. Worse, they are most likely promising two to four times what they could ever deliver.

    1. Stuff like the Big Dig is demonstrative of how politicians are firm believers in using the sunk cost fallacy to get unreasonably huge projects over the finish line (eventually). You promise the public a bunch of cool stuff, get the beginnings of the infrastructure put into place, and when it fails spectacularly you insist it just needs “a little more money.” Repeat ad infinitum until the cronies who donated to your campaign are satisfied with the rents they’re collecting.

  25. This may appear to some like a quibble, but I have significant problems w/ language like “If Warren somehow managed to pass her entire wish list”. I’ve seen similar language in articles in the MSM to the effect “Trump enacted”. Maybe it’s been so long since my ConLaw course that I don’t recall the Constitution sufficiently, but I thought that CONGRESS passed and enacted laws. Are we now acceding to the concept of the President as a monarch?
    Do the various suggested budgets also provide for the cost of the Crown for POTUS? Will it, or will it not, also include the cost of Crown Jewels like in the UK …

    1. Presidents propose budgets that then need to be passed by Congress. It’s not in the Constitution, but that’s how it’s done these days. Of course, I’m not sure how this squares with “initiated in the HoR.”

  26. She rails about greed while showing unrestrained greed for power and money to control. Does she even realize the irony?

  27. Th bill for free health care, the green deal and underfunded
    pensions should come in north of $150 trillion. Easily affordable with inflation and funny money.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.