Hey, there! Log in / Register

And then there were three

Moulton makes it official, joining Warren and Weld in the race for president.

Topics: 
Ad:

Comments

of that Crimson jarhead never ceases to amaze.

Seths current term in office will be his last, then he'll skip to his lou down to Virginia for a fat lobbying gig with all the other Brets and Squees.

up
Voting closed 21

You would rather vote for Cadet Bonespurs?

up
Voting closed 10

Thats exactly what I said.

(eyeroll)

up
Voting closed 6

I may vote for Senator Warren, she wants to have free college for all, that will save me $400-500k considering my two kids will be attending within the next 14 years. Thank you taxpayers.

up
Voting closed 11

CNBC has a decent summary. One key part:

The money would come from the 2% annual tax she proposes to levy on accumulations of wealth exceeding $50 million, with an additional 1% on wealth exceeding $1 billion.

So, no, most taxpayers would not be paying for this.

And she isn't calling for "free college for all." She's calling for free tuition at public colleges, and people who make more than $250,000 a year would not be eligible for any of her grant proposals (and only people with income under $100,000 would be fully eligible).

You might not like the proposal, maybe you have $51 million in stocks, I don't know, but at least argue against what she's actually saying.

Side note: I am grateful that our daughter, a UMass student, qualified for an Adams Scholarship, which pays for her tuition. But funny thing: Tuition in the UMass system is only a small part of the yearly bill, so that particular proposal of Warren's still wouldn't mean a free education at UMass. Another part of Warren's proposal is a dramatic increase in Pell grants, which would help with the rest of her bill (and yes, Warren's proposal to wipe out student debt would help our daughter quite a bit as she starts out on her life after college).

up
Voting closed 36

Yes, my wife and I already discussed, Why have a two income household if we can get under the $100k threshold to get the 100% freebie, that's far worth more than another income (and my wife could be just by the pool earning our free tuition instead of stuck in a cube)

up
Voting closed 11

...or even Adam's summary.

Hopefully for your kids' sake you haven't been helping with their homework.

up
Voting closed 26

I'm guessing the OP doesn't understand how marginal tax rates work, either.

"Gotta keep my income lower, or I'll pay a higher tax rate!" Trump 2020 amirite?

up
Voting closed 19

for a year, then compare your tax returns with the previous year. Your brilliance will come shining through.

up
Voting closed 14

Certainly the media aren't covering themselves with glory in covering her plan accurately, but you really went out of your way to misrepresent it. Here's what's in her plan, for those who prefer facts to dogwhistles:

  1. Canceling up to $50,000 in debt for every person with a household income under $250k
  2. Make public 2 and 4 year colleges tuition-free
  3. Expand Pell grants (remember those?) to assist with non-tuition expenses
  4. Cut off federal funds for for-profit colleges

It's an investment in the future. Of course, if you'd rather have education reserved for feckless scions of privilege who have to pay for a decent SAT score...

up
Voting closed 26

I wouldnt worry too much about higher education.

Perhaps read her proposal first?

up
Voting closed 11

And her kids have brains, they aren't her kids.

That wealth tax is a MORONIC idea and will never happen.

I don't have $50 million and never will come close unless I hit the lottery. However, on top of millions of other things (literally), most people with that kind of dough don't have it sitting around and increasing amounts of it are not liquid. And that's before you get into how determining how much these things are worth at any given moment to begin with (his current trouble aside, anyone want to tell me what Robert Kraft's net worth was in the Pats and his private company and his real estate at the close of business on December 31st? Reasonable estimates probably vary by tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Now multiply trying to do that by tens of thousands to get everyone that would be covered by this. You would waste more money on beancounters and regulation than you'll raise.

This is not a serious proposal made by a not seriously smart person.

up
Voting closed 4

...simply have no words for that nonsense.

up
Voting closed 10

They don't just throw up their hands once someone hits a certain threshold and say "that's it, we don't have any way of figuring out what their assets are anymore". We've already got a system set up to determine what peoples' assets are - how do you think we calculate estate taxes? This is just taking that and adding an additional fee based on that.

You can dispute whether that's fair, and even dispute whether it would work (yeah, a lot of these people would probably find loopholes or dodges to avoid actually paying such a tax) but acting like that calculation is totally impossible...well, some might call that "a MORONIC idea", made by "a not seriously smart person".

up
Voting closed 10

Or do you just not know how capital gains taxes work?

There's a big difference between doing this maybe once in your lifetime and every year, In addition to adjustments made at liquidation. speaking of liquidity, where are you supposed to get the cash to pay these taxes. You think these people just leave that kind of cash just laying around esp. At today's interest rates?

C'mon already.

up
Voting closed 4

Taxpayers will be permitted to defer payment of the tax with interest for up to five years: For the rare taxpayer with an extremely high net worth but liquidity constraints that make it difficult to pay this additional tax, there will be an option to defer payment of the tax for up to five years, with interest. The IRS will also be instructed to create rules for cases where deferment is required in truly exceptional circumstances to prevent unintended negative impacts on an ongoing enterprise or a taxpayer facing unusual circumstances that would advise for delay.

You might want to take a look at the whole thing before you start rushing to the defense of the ultra-wealthy (psst: they're not rushing to your defense any time soon)

up
Voting closed 5

So I own a business worth $150 million (assuming it's worth $150 million and not $100 million or $75 million - it's ridiculously complicated to value this stuff and you'll never get two people to agree - and now instead of just at death you have to do this every year. Is this a jobs act for beancounters?). And if you take say 40% of after tax profit away, at least to another wealthy buyer is worth a lot less

So I owe $2 million extra a year on this (and as an aside, not for any additional government services, but based on yesterday's comments to pay off other people's debt). Say it's 2008, and I'm having hard times -so I can accrue this - with interest. So five years down the road I owe $10 million, plus millions in interest? And maybe my business is just starting to make money.

And you think the IRS can just "regulate" away the exceptional situation. Talk about loopholes.

You may not realize this - but the estate tax in these situations is often paid for with a life insurance policy. You can't insure against an annual tax and these types of businesses are often just not that liquid.

I repeat - this is a MORONIC idea and there's a reason nobody or just about nobody else does this.

Spoken like a bureaucrat - not somebody that has actually ever run a business or even worked in a real business.

up
Voting closed 4

Simplify the tax code. Bean counter problem solved.

up
Voting closed 1

The lack of any serious interest in Moulton's potentially open Sixth District seat shows that even his fellow Dem neighbors realize he has no chance. He might have the liberal bona fides and he dutifully trashed President Trump in his announcement. Still, a combat veteran won't win the Democrat nomination no matter how liberal.

Knowing he has no chance, why is Moulton doing this? Is it just to humiliate Elizabeth Warren by siphoning votes and denying her a crucial win in her "home" state? That would be devastating to Warren in more ways than one. Her presidential campaign is essentially already over but if she hangs around and loses MA, her Senate future will be in serious doubt. Is Moulton looking to leave her in political ruin so that he can move up? Of course Moulton will drop out of the presidential race in plenty of time to file for re-election to Congress but no doubt he will hang in long enough to destroy Warren or broker a deal with her.

up
Voting closed 13

Oh Fish. Your concern trolling never fails to amuse, coming as it does from an ill-informed, chronically out-of-touch, ax-grinding bigot. You really should leave this to people who are at least marginally convincing -- you're not doing your played-out cause any good.

up
Voting closed 20

To all of us during her Senate runs. She promised she wasn't going to run for POTUS and was focused on MA.

She'll never get my vote for any office again, not after this and the 1/1,024 BS.

up
Voting closed 23

you trolls arent so much annoying as you are boring

up
Voting closed 14

You might as well have titled your comment I'M A LIAR.

up
Voting closed 11

But I suspect the other one probably wouldn't get your support, either.

up
Voting closed 10

There are 3 veterans running for the Democratic nomination for President.

up
Voting closed 8

I seem to remember him getting attacked for being a combat veteran when he ran...oh wait, that was by the Republicans though

up
Voting closed 11

"I'm not a political advisor, but I'd really like to think I'd be good at it."

up
Voting closed 6

However,

Moulton is the only one out of the Mass. delegation not standing up for community television. Ask him why he doesn't care if your local city councils, selectmen/alderman and school committees are broadcast.

up
Voting closed 3

something tells me that single-issue voters on community TV are not a large pool of voters.

up
Voting closed 13

Seth Moulton really showed who he was a few years ago when he refused to show respect and participate in moments of silence in remembrance of the Las Vegas and Orlando shooting victims on the floor.

To Moulton, it was more important that he made it about himself and that he was making a point about gun control - instead of respecting the families of those that had suffered an unthinkable tragedy.

up
Voting closed 10

What better way to "respect" the families than try to prevent such things from happening again?

If I want prayer, I'll see a minister.

up
Voting closed 14

There are infinite more appropriate times that he could have addressed and made his points on gun control.

Seth Moulton took the tragedies as an opportunity to make the situation about Seth Moulton, and tweet about so that everyone would know what Seth Moulton did. He wasn't honoring anyone.

A moment of silence is a very powerful public showing of support for victims and their families, taking any amount attention away from that is selfish, and not "respecting" them.

up
Voting closed 11

The time and place to push for gun control is immediately after a shooting. And before a shooting. And all the time in between.

It's disrespectful when elected officials cue up the "moment of silence" and then promptly don't do anything else. The most respectful thing he can do is everything in his power to prevent further shooting. And not a single shooting has been prevented because of a moment of silence.

I don't think Seth should run for president but I'd be happy to vote for him if he makes as far as the nomination.

up
Voting closed 8

Maybe you've never been part of a moment of silence. I've been part of far too many. They are a powerful public gesture. They are the opposite of "disrespectful" thing you think they are. Next time you are in one, try to think of the victims, not the reason you think the tragedy happened the whole time, you might get more out of it.

Think about the appreciation felt in that moment of the families. There is a time and place for everything, and doing anything but participating in a moment of silence is "disrespectful".

He can stand on his soapbox after the moment, not tweet "look at me, I'm not participating!" before it happens.

up
Voting closed 10

Think about the appreciation felt in that moment of the families.

Appreciation OF the families? By whom? By the legislators who immediately proceeded to kick the gun control can down the road, declaring it to be "too soon"?

Maybe you meant BY the families, in which case, I'd guess that they probably had other things on their mind at that moment and weren't watching C-SPAN. Would you like to clarify what you meant?

up
Voting closed 7

It's pretty obvious, as you figured out, that I meant "appreciated by the families", no need to get so upset. Weird line to pick out that doesn't really change the point of the whole post/comment line.

You can guess that they had other things on their mind - I will guess that if my family was affected by either of the tragedies, and an elected official decided his idea was more important then standing and showing any sign of empathy, I'd be pretty pissed.

I've explained myself as you demanded, take a breath. Take away gun control from this conversation and my point is still the same - refusing to participate in a moment of silence is disrespectful and selfish.

up
Voting closed 6

Thoughts, prayers, moments of silence don't do shit. Pure grandstanding.

New Zealand shows us that it does not take much to JUST FIX THE PROBLEM OF CIVILIAN WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

up
Voting closed 6