🤖 Made with AI
Two former Biden Treasury officials, Kimberly Clausing and Natasha Sarin, have a brilliant idea for Democrats: raise $15 TRILLION in taxes. A breathtaking appetite for other people’s money. Because apparently, the problem with Washington isn’t that it spends too much money. It’s that it hasn’t taken enough of yours. This isn’t a tax plan. It’s a $15 trillion fishing expedition—with every American’s wallet as the bait.
To them, you’re not seen as individuals. You’re just a budget line item in the D.C. tax and spend machine.
The plan calls for $5 trillion in individual tax hikes, another $5 trillion in corporate tax hikes on businesses large and small, a corporate tax rate that would be the highest in the developed world, and even more taxes on capital gains, dividends, guns, alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. Apparently, if you enjoy something, own something, invest in something, or run a business, Democrats demand a cut.
What’s missing? Cutting the $3 trillion in cumulative waste, fraud and abuse the GAO has identified since 2003. But why fix the leak when you can send taxpayers a $15T water bill?
Also missing: any meaningful macroeconomic analysis of the damage these tax hikes could inflict on jobs, wages, families, small businesses, investors, private investment, business growth, and the overall U.S. economy.
While published months ago, this is a solid explanation of how Thune tried to kill the SAVE America Act without getting dirty. Well done DR
Replying to @LeaderJohnThune
Hello Senator Thune,
Let's expose what you're really doing with "reconciliation."
You announced it yesterday, eleven months after the House passed the SAVE America Act. You're not trying to pass this bill. You're trying to kill it in a way you can blame on process.
Here's how we know:
Reconciliation requires the Senate parliamentarian to rule that provisions are "budgetary." Citizenship verification is not budgetary. Photo ID mandates are not budgetary. The parliamentarian will gut the bill. Then you'll shrug and say "we tried." We see through you.
Meanwhile, you WON'T use the tools that actually work:
Rule XIX limits each senator to two speeches per legislative day. Keep the Senate in continuous session, file cloture daily, and the filibuster exhausts in ~12-20 days. You dismissed it as "complicated." Because if you tried and succeeded, you'd have to actually pass the bill.
Harry Reid nuked the filibuster in 2013 when he wanted results.
Mitch McConnell changed Senate rules THREE times and canceled the August recess.
Chuck Schumer used reconciliation within months on a 50-50 Senate.
You have 53 seats. You've changed nothing, canceled nothing, and waited eleven months.
Now let's talk donors:
• Goldman Sachs: $150K to you - top H-1B user
• Google: $75K - lobbies against E-Verify
• Meta: $72.5K - Zuckerberg's FWD[.]us pushes mass immigration
• Wells Fargo: $90K - banks undocumented immigrants
Same corporations sponsor Punchbowl News, where you sit for "Fly Out Days" which nobody watches except Congress staffers and K Street lobbyists who pays premium bucks for legislative intelligence. Their reporter then telegraphs to the audience the SAVE Act "will ultimately fail."
Corporate money flows to you AND to the outlet that frames your inaction as inevitable.
We see the loop.
You called grassroots anger a "paid influencer ecosystem." YOU are the paid influencer. You take the wrong side of a 80% issue because you are indistinguishable from a K Street mouthpiece, and an ineffective one to boot who won't bend the rules to get anything passed.
What we want:
1. Force a real talking filibuster.
2. Stop hiding behind process.
3. Pass the SAVE America Act.
YOU will become the reason that we will have our butts kicked in midterms. Not Candace Owens, not Nick Fuentes, not anyone else. You and you alone, and all because you want to make the 200 or so viewers of Punchbowl Fly Out Days happy. You're living in a K Street information bubble, addicted to the comforts and praises of lobbyists masquerading as journalists. You mistake the steak and martini dinners you get invited to as your own constituents.
You are not "moderate." The SAVE America Act has 98% support among Republicans. Name one other thing that has 98% support. You are an extreme minority who prides himself on being a calm leader, when in reality you are well in the running for the most ineffective Majority leader of all time.
Prove me wrong. Do the bare modicum of effort. Not symbolic. Actual effort. Cancel the recess. Get SAVE America Act passed.
"Why do you want to deport people who take the low paying jobs Americans don't want?"
This is why.
Paging Dana Bash. Yet another example of you knee-jerking to take the opposing view from this administration, only to be proven wrong. Again. And again. It won't even land with you that this demonstrates your reputation as a leftist advocate, not an unbiased journalist.
Unbelievable. Even the New York Times is reporting this.
Mary Peltola's team combed Alaska's voter rolls for every man named Dan Sullivan, then recruited one to run to confuse voters. Senior Democratic Senate campaign officials in Washington were in on it.
Two terms in Congress. Zero bills signed into law. But she found time to hunt down every Dan Sullivan in Alaska.
Control of the Senate goes through Alaska. Let's elect the REAL Dan Sullivan.
I see you turned off responses, so I'll do it this way.
Inflation is cumulative. It doesn't refer to prices going up and down. Once they're up they stay up. So Biden's 9% inflation plus the 3% at the end of his term caused price increases over 12%.
Replying to @TedBaxterKnows @MikeJoPro
From 4 years ago?
I hope you are being sarcastic.
If not, why has Trump made it worse rather than better?
Ya see, conservatives. This is what you're up against. The left plays dirty. They didn't make a peep when Biden retroactively pardoned his family and friends, but now they will initiate legal challenges if Trump does it.
When will you wake up, grow a spine, and recognize that taking the high road with this crowd NEVER ends well.
Coal here doesn’t understand that inflation is cumulative. The 3.1% at the end of Biden's term is STACKED on the 9% from earlier in his term.
Replying to @TedBaxterKnows @MikeJoPro
Inflation was 3.1% when Biden left office. If you insist on citing only the % from Covid, then let's look @ Reagan's 11% @ the peak of the OPEC oil embargo.
This is like saying a young couple isn't in debt because they bought an expensive car, take expensive vacations, and pay for 8 streaming services so they can watch anything they want on demand. It's because their boss just isn't paying them enough.
George, I have always respected your opinions until the Trump era. You have developed an irrational knee-jerk auto-response to anything he says or does. Let me make things very clear:
Trump emerged out of decades of GOP politicians promising one thing and doing another. Talking conservative but acting like big-spending liberals. Just as beholden to special interests as the left. Growing the debt as fast if not faster than the left. Just as corrupt, in many instances, as the left.
Is he polished? Nope. Does he shoot himself in the foot frequently? Yep. Is he solidly conservative? Not even close. But he is the product of decades of disappointment by conservatives (effectively since the days of Barry Goldwater) looking for someone to break the Washington DC juggernaut of self enrichment, lies and corruption. He has failed at many of these, but that doesn't matter. His base views him as the janitor cleaning up the mess, even if his actions sometimes run afoul of conservative ideology.
You can furrow your brow about his rhetoric. You can jump on board with the endless false claims that he "did this" or "said that". But he is exactly what a frustrated American conservative voter base wanted to break the status quo. Sadly, he hasn't been as successful at that as I'd like, due in part to a feckless GOP Congress that doesn't have the same backbone and assertiveness that the left has when they hold the reins of power.
The GOP (and pundits like you) have brought this era to us due to a fondness more for cocktail party invitations than for doing the right thing.
I (like you) hope that we return to a less rough-hewn executive in the future, but I also hope he or she has the same passion for breaking the status quo that Trump exemplifies (Ron DeSantis, anyone?).
Until then, buckle up. Trump isn't changing. He will continue to upend the apple cart and generally piss off Washington establishment types like you. But the game has changed. We will no longer tolerate "the old way" or a GOP that rolls over and always succumbs to the demand that WE must take the high road.
The game has changed, thanks in large part to Trump, despite his warts. The old glad-handing bullshit artist droning on about "my good friend from Massachusetts" is finished. We want action and results. We want smaller government, protection of our liberties, low taxes and a feared Defense capability. Trump hasn't delivered on all that, but he got the ball rolling.
The cascading absurdities of a downward-spiraling presidency
washingtonpost.com/opinions/…
Ted Baxter retweeted
Whoa. Amy Acton’s (D-Ohio) mother has come out in a potential ad against her own daughter. 🤯
Calling her a liar and saying Amy never grew up in a tent.
Brutal. Amy Acton does need help that’s for sure.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Court records from 1978 corroborate Amys story including that Cledith Arthur was charged with having sexual contact with Amy.
As context of character, donna Arthur pled guilty to theft by deception in Pennsylvania in the 1990s.
x.com/JustinBarasky/…
nytimes.com/2026/10/20/us/…
nationalreview.com/news/amy-acton…
Many are debating whether homeowners who paid off their home should pay property tax. Setting aside whether there are better ways to fund local services, I have a better question:
When you put 20% down to buy a home, why isn't the bank holding the mortgage paying 80% of the property tax?
Ted Baxter retweeted
Seriously, shut up.
The amount of taxes we have to pay is ridiculous. Let me lay it out for ya, son.
I work hard all week and earn a salary, which comes in a biweekly paycheck. But before I see a cent of it, the federal government takes its share. Depending on your income bracket, they take 10–37% of that right off the top. Then, it gets taxed again at 15.3% for FICA: 12.4% gets stolen for Social Security and 2.9% goes to Medicare.
Then depending on which state you live in, you might be required to pay state income tax. States like Florida and Tennessee have none, some have a flat rate (e.g., Idaho and Georgia), and others have progressive rates based on income brackets. In California, high income earners take a 13.3% hit.
Then after the federal and state governments have gotten their greedy hands on my paycheck, suppose I decide to be responsible and save a portion of what's left in a savings account and earn a little interest on it. Guess what? The IRS wants a cut of that, too. So, the money I earned that was already taxed is now subject to the same income taxes.
Let's now suppose I decide to invest some of that in the stock market. I buy shares in a company (e.g., Tesla), take on the risk of losing my investment, and hopefully make a profit. Well, if I sell those shares for a gain, Uncle Sam comes knocking on my door again. Depending on how long I held the investment and my taxable income, I may owe 0%, 15%, or 20% in federal long-term capital gains taxes, potentially another 3.8% in net investment income tax, plus applicable state taxes. And short-term gains can be taxed at the ordinary income tax rates of 10–37%.
And if I decide to spend my money? You guessed it. More taxes, baby! 45 states and many localities impose sales taxes, meaning I get taxed again when I buy groceries, clothes, household appliances, consumer electronics, and practically anything else. In some places, the combined state and local sales taxes exceed 10%. Louisiana's sales tax alone is 10.11%!
Wanna buy a house with the money you have spent years saving? Congratulations, bucko! Now you're responsible for paying property taxes, which you will be obligated to pay every single year. And if you fail to pay it for long enough, you will eventually lose the property through a tax sale or foreclosure. So much for actually owning something, right?
Wanna buy a vehicle? Depending on your state, you may owe sales tax and annual registration fees. And in some states (my home state of Virginia comes to mind), you are required to pay property taxes on that, too. Then, every time you fill up your tank at the pump, you have to pay gas taxes. The federal government collects $0.18 / gallon, and state and local governments pile their own taxes on top of that.
Now, suppose I decide not to spend or invest any of my remaining money at all. I just keep it in cash. Well, inflation gradually erodes its purchasing power away year after year. It's not an enforced tax, but a hidden one that the federal government has done nothing to stop because we're no longer on the Gold Standard and we run massive deficits each year that is financed by monetary expansion (i.e., “printing”) to pay for socialist welfare and wealth transfer programs as well as endless wars in the Middle East.
The bottom line is that I get taxed when I work hard and earn money. I get taxed again on the interest when I save that money. I get taxed a third time on the profits when I invest it. I get taxed when I spend it. I get taxed for “owning” property. And I get taxed when I drive.
And yes, I'm much aware that we need at least some taxation to pay for things like national defense, public roads, and basic services to have a functioning society. Nobody really disagrees with that. But it does not mean every tax is justified or that the government should have an unlimited claim on the fruits of our labor. And if you look at the state of our roads in many states (Pennsylvania and New York's roads suck ass, Alabama's are nice, however) and public schools, it's abundantly clear that our tax dollars aren't being used wisely.
Our founding fathers waged a revolution against Great Britain over far less atrocities than this.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Shocking but not really surprising:
Over half (57%) of Dems are neutral or positive on the idea of Trump being assassinated
While Dems love to talk about how J6 was an attempted coup and a threat to democracy, almost 3/4 (72%) are neutral or positive on a military coup against Trump.
Replying to @StratPolitics
We polled five routes for Trump to leave office before the end of his term. A plurality of Dems support four of them, including a military coup and death by natural causes. The only one underwater, an assassination, is still supported by 29%.
Gotta say, it's more than a little creepy that the people pissed off about the cancellation of the live streaming of this execution seem more upset that they don't get to personally watch someone die vs the potential that it would have served as a deterrent.
Trump caved again to the left.
Nidal Hasan walked into Fort Hood, opened fire, and killed 13 Soldiers while wounding more than 30. He sat on death row for years while the system dragged its feet. The firing squad was set. The livestream was set. Then the bipartisan crying started and Trump folded.
That POS deserved a worldwide audience after he executed my Army brothers and sisters.
He said he wanted the world to see how America handles terrorists and scum like Hasan. Then he backed down because some people “would rather not watch.” The families of the dead Soldiers get to show up in person if they want.
Everyone else gets nothing.
I am frustrated by the growing focus on polls before elections. They become the central story for news organizations. They treat it like a game, and focus on "who is ahead" over the things we SHOULD be focused on: issues and policies.
These news organizations will say they are just catering to the demands of the public for this type of information. They're lying to you. They CREATED this demand and have trained you to focus on the horse race instead of the issues.
Imagine if every news organization filled their columns and airtime with comparisons of candidate positions on the issues we care about instead of "who is leading in the polls". Even with media bias (which I think most Americans now factor in), we'd all be able to make more educated votes and not be swayed by the latest polls.
One can dream.
In 2016, on Tuesday, looking at data rolling in, I told the then-global head of rates at JPM that Trump would win.
It was not, shall we say, a consensus call at the time.
So I want to talk a little bit about what I'm seeing right now, since the timeline is going crazy.
On a trading desk, it matters more to be right than to be popular, and it matters more to be right than to predict what you want to happen.
I have the curse of being a mathematician by training. So I still have the muscles, even if I don't use them as much.
Right now I would say this:
1 - Anyone who thinks they know anything with high confidence you should immediately discount in this election cycle.
2 - The error bars on races, especially the swing races in the Senate, are likely so large that polling may not be particularly predictive.
3 - There are conflicting cross factors that really are making a mess out of some of the traditional polling which is causing this.
Namely, what I'm seeing is a few things that gives me major heartburn.
First, non-response rates to polls are now so high I think it's impossible to know if we have a representative sample of any subgroup. We can 100% get the aggregate weighting correct to voter turnout, but when you model your R sample at 10% crossover votes and get 4%, or your I sample at mildly D leaning at +2% but instead get +10%, it means all your re-weighting was an exercise in false specificity.
Second, we have major conflicts in the data. People are claiming they did not vote for Trump in 2024 when we are pretty sure they did, and we are getting R samples in some swing states where if the sample is correct about the sides voting in 2024, Harris would be president (she's not, if you've been in a coma). At the same time, we have young people looking maybe way more like they did in 2022 than 2026, and we know we are missing a large chunk of that sample because they never fucking answer the phone, so the net result is... ... ...? Yeah, nobody knows.
Third, mutually combative forces. Anti-incumbency is a thing in mid-term elections, it's also a thing in American politics where "fuck the guy in charge I hate it here" seems to be stronger than partisanship in an increasing number of cases. This means that helps Dems in red states but hurts Dems in blue states? The reverse would be true for Republicans. These kinds of forces produce compression.
Fourth, social media and Twitter are not the real world, but the distortionary forces here are influencing the polling landscape, where I would imagine the most media-connected people are also the ones taking polls, which leads to the invisible sample also being the ones in a different discourse bubble than the ones on here.
The punch line is simple: take any error bar and triple it. Quadruple if you're in Maine or something. We don't know anything, and any confident prediction about Dems taking the Senate or Republicans holding the House are almost certainly wrong. Not in their specific outcome, but rather, in good process. All pigs are fish therefore 2+2 = 4 type thinking.
Right now, depending on how you want to torture the data, you can see any outcome from R/R to D/D and any middle state. We've had large polling misses meaning we should be favoring Dems (NJ governor, anyone?), Rs being underweighted in the past meaning we should favor them (IA, anyone?), and just internal polling that was way off (El-Sayed way up in the primary, anyone?).
Anyone giving you a confident hot take here, in short, is full of it. Even the early voting is not uniform, and while the information content there is not always high, there is usually not zero, and if you're looking at data from GA vs. OH, you aren't getting the exact same vibes, much less some other places.
In short: national politics is getting weirder, polling is getting harder, the parties are fragmenting internally, and nobody knows shit yet.
Good news, though: they'll all claim they were right after the fact. What you should do is track both predictions and process to see who is really worth listening to over time.
Ted Baxter retweeted
Dear Secretary Bessent @SecScottBessent,
My name is Everett Stern. In 2010 I was a compliance officer at @HSBC. From a back office in New Castle, Delaware, I watched billions of dollars move to drug cartels, sanctioned regimes, and terrorist organizations. The enemies of the United States. I documented it, I escalated it, and when the bank would not act, I took it to the @FBI, the @CIA, and eventually the @SECGov.
The result was a $1.92 billion settlement. At the time, it was one of the largest in American history. It was also about five weeks of the bank’s profit. Not one banker was charged. Not one went to prison.
I paid a different price. I lost my career, my savings, and my place in the industry I had trained for. I was blacklisted. Every door in American finance closed at once. I slept on a camping cot in a 300 square foot apartment because I could not afford a bed, and I waited tables at @PFChangs to eat. I tell you this not for sympathy, but so you understand that I know exactly what it costs to do the right thing in American finance, and exactly how little the system does in return.
I made that sacrifice because I believed it would change something.
Yesterday, your department fined @BankofAmerica $1.2 billion for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions, some of it tied by your own findings to Chinese laundering networks, narcotics, and the southwest border, alongside 475 apparent sanctions violations touching Russia, Iran, and global terrorism. The bank admitted it willfully violated the Bank Secrecy Act.
Fourteen years after HSBC. A bank with “America” in its name. And once again, not one individual charged.
Secretary Bessent, I want to say plainly what I believe you already know. The fines are not working.
A fine is paid by shareholders, absorbed by the balance sheet, and forgotten by the next earnings call. Bank of America reported earnings this morning. Nobody who set the alert thresholds, nobody who decided the 2024 cease and desist could wait, nobody who chose the backlog over the law will lose a single thing they value. Their lives are untouched. That is the entire reason the behavior repeats.
This is money laundering. This is blood money. Money that reaches a cartel buys fentanyl that kills Americans. Money that reaches a terrorist organization buys the next attack. This country has fought a war on drugs and a war on terror for decades, at enormous cost in lives and treasure, and all the while we have allowed the financing to flow through institutions we charter and regulate. Cut off the money and we win. We have never seriously tried.
There is also a question of equal justice that I cannot let go.
Before I walked into the FBI building to report HSBC, I stopped in front of the Great Seal on the wall and read the words engraved beneath it: “Justice is the defense of our liberty.” I believed that. I still want to. But every day in this country, people go to prison for crimes that are nothing next to moving money for the people who want Americans dead. A suit, a title, and a corporate badge should not be a shield from the consequences that apply to everyone else. If a street dealer goes to prison for what he sells, the banker who moved the cartel’s money should be standing next to him.
I also want to raise something that is rarely said in these conversations. Why has no one inside Bank of America come forward the way I did? The answer is that everyone in American banking knows what happened to me, and to the whistleblowers who came after. The last person who spoke up is the only policy anyone believes. That is a culture problem, and it starts with leadership, in the banks and in the agencies that regulate them.
This is not a political issue. It has spanned administrations of both parties. It is a national security issue, and I am asking you to treat it as one.
Three things would change the math overnight.
Refer individuals for criminal prosecution. Not the analyst in the queue. The executives who set the thresholds and chose the risk. One banker in handcuffs would do more than every fine in Treasury’s history combined.
End “too big to jail.” An institution cannot be too big to fail and too big to jail at the same time. If it is the first, it must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
And if Bank of America will not act as America’s bank, review its charter. A national charter is a privilege granted on behalf of the American people. It should be conditioned on not moving money for the people trying to kill them.
Secretary Bessent, you said yesterday that these actions send a clear message that even the biggest institutions are not above the law. With respect, the institution was never the problem. The people inside it are above the law, and they know it. Until that changes, I will keep writing letters like this one, and the next bank will keep paying the next fine.
I gave up everything I had to stop this. I am asking you to use the power you have to finish it.
Respectfully,
Everett A. Stern
HSBC Whistleblower
Founder and Intelligence Director, Tactical Rabbit
Yeah, actually, we do. At every single site. And we want
*cleaned voter rolls
* no mail-in ballots
* proof of citizenship to register to vote
* proof of identity to cast a vote
* vote counts completed by midnight on Election Day






















