• Elon Musk said his wealth "isn't some deep mystery" and that his taxes are "super simple."
• He told The Babylon Bee he doesn't use tax-avoidance schemes, offshore accounts, or tax shelters.
• The tech billionaire recently clashed with Warren, who accused him of "freeloading" over taxes.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he doesn't use any tax-avoidance schemes, offshore accounts, or tax shelters.

Instead, his taxes are "super simple," he told the conservative Christian satire site The Babylon Bee in an interview published Wednesday.

Musk's comments came less than two weeks after he clashed with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Twitter. The Democratic senator had accused him of "freeloading" over taxes after he was named Time's Person of the Year, and Musk snapped back by calling Warren "Senator Karen."

Speaking about the feud in his interview with The Babylon Bee, Musk said he was "literally paying the most tax that any individual in history has ever paid this year" and that Warren "doesn't pay any taxes, basically at all."

"If you could die by irony, she would be dead," he added, explaining that Warren's salary and taxes were paid for by taxpayers.

Elon Musk says his taxes are simple and that he doesn't use offshore accounts or tax shelters in response to Elizabeth Warren's 'freeloading' claims (yahoo.com)

Said the guy that thinks selling flamethrowers and cars that allow you to play video games while driving is a good idea.

A genius with the common sense of a 12 year old boy (with no insult to 12 year old boys intended).

I do think his taxes are relatively simple relative to his wealth. He is able to avoid paying taxes most years because he funds his lifestyle through debt. He's paying a lot this year ($11b?) because of the rules around his stock options but that's largely arbitrary. What we have is a system that allows some of the wealthiest to choose when to pay taxes based on how they generate liquidity.

Unfortunately, that's a product of both current tax law as well as arguably the constitution (16th amendment).

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Unfortunately, that's a product of both current tax law as well as arguably the constitution (16th amendment).

---

had to look it up..
> Amendment XVI
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Musk has benefitted PLENTY from big government. He does some good things for the world, but that doesn't make him not a jerk. As a capitalist, I will sometimes let some of this exploit-the-workers stuff slide, but c'mon.

The Babylon Bee is a satirical site. People know this, right?

bearister said:

---

A genius with the common sense of a 12 year old boy (with no insult to 12 year old boys intended).

---

It's not easy being a genius.

Big C said:

---

The Babylon Bee is a satirical site. People know this, right?

---

Yes, it's a conservative Christian news satire website.
It's a Christian, evangelical version of The Onion.

That having been said, it's where Musk announced (via podcast interview) that he had "sold enough stock to get to around 10%" . . . which was his target.

Obama's Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (the guy that was warning everyone about INFLATION last Spring) was asked about the Warren vs Musk "feud" and he said that he wished that they'd "tone" it down. He also said that he believed that Warren was anti-entrepreneur and her tax proposals approaching 'confiscatory'.

One thing I know for sure, you'll never ever see Warren or Sanders visit Silicon Valley or use the word RISK when criticizing people who have generated wealth.

For the first time in his 20+ year career influencing public policy many are finally saying Lawrence Summers is right this year in his prediction of inflation.

But Summers didn't just predict inflation - he predicted an economic slowdown. We may see an economic slowdown but only if the Fed overreacts. I think if we didn't have partisan blinders we'd all agree that with zero interest rates and QE, we WANT inflation. The inflation and growth we are seeing is a sign that the fiscal stimulus is working.

The best end result would be the Fed GRADUALLY raising interest rates. If they can get their rate back up to 2% with real economic growth and modest inflation that would be a monumental success.

I'd also like to know why the loudest voices right now against changing our approach are all white progressive women.

We have Kate Chatfield from the DA's office, Jennifer Friedenbach from COH, Hilary Ronen of D8.

All yelling about defunding the police.

What is this about?

— Michelle Tandler ⚖️ (@michelletandler) December 26, 2021

this entire thread is great. The particular post was funny and true.

White progressive = devil.

In college I studied totalitarian governments and how they came to power.

The similarities I see to many elements of society today are harrowing.

The cancel culture, the "wrongthink", the adulation of "experts", the cultishness towards "science", the blind support by party.

— Michelle Tandler ⚖️ (@michelletandler) December 26, 2021

like fauci

Dajo....Yep.....Inflation at a 39 year high is a remarkable success. .I'd hate to see what failure is...It is not a coincidence that your economic literacy dovetails quite nicely with your political literacy.

helltopay1 said:

---

Dajo....Yep.....Inflation at a 39 year high is a remarkable success. .I'd hate to see what failure is...It is not a coincidence that your economic literacy dovetails quite nicely with your political literacy.

---

If you had paid any attention to your unfortunate teachers you might have learned that correlation is not causation.

Look it up. It's a challenging concept for most Republicans.

dajo9 said:

---

For the first time in his 20+ year career influencing public policy many are finally saying Lawrence Summers is right this year in his prediction of inflation.

But Summers didn't just predict inflation - he predicted an economic slowdown. We may see an economic slowdown but only if the Fed overreacts. I think if we didn't have partisan blinders we'd all agree that with zero interest rates and QE, we WANT inflation. The inflation and growth we are seeing is a sign that the fiscal stimulus is working.

The best end result would be the Fed GRADUALLY raising interest rates. If they can get their rate back up to 2% with real economic growth and modest inflation that would be a monumental success.

---

I'm sorry, but your post above clearly shows how "young" you are when it comes to the economy, financial markets, and monetary policy. More "cut and paste" from your favorite progressive politician perhaps?

In fact, if I were you I'd be asking for a "refund" from the school where you earned your MBA from.

Given your progressive politics . . . it's comical that you believe that we WANT inflation!
Inflation cripples the lower economic classes of our country because they are primarily renters.

The cost of rents and and owner's equivalent rents (OER), by far the largest share of the CPI, have risen only 3.5% and 3% in the past year. That's a fraction of the 14.3% rise in Zillow's Observed Rend Index and the 19.5% increase in the Case-Shiller Home Price Index. - - - Because of how they are calculated, OER and rents are notorious laggards and will pick up sharply at least through the end of 2023.

So, the lower economic wage earners (renters) are about to get absolutely CRUSHED BY INFLATION.
Do you really believe this is what Sanders and your economic "guru" Elizabeth Warren want to see happen?

For some bizarre reason, you are totally unaware of inflation's over-weighted negative impact on middle and lower income classes. This is Basic Econ 101a.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is so far behind the curve when it comes to dealing with inflation its not even funny. In case you havent noticed, real rates are dramatically negative. In fact, real short-term rates are at their lowest levels in 4 DECADES.

It's also terribly naive to think that the Fed has ever been successful when it comes to combating inflation in a gradual manner that doesnt cause an economic slowdown.

I literally blew my coffee back into my coffee mug when you said, "Only if the Fed overreacts"

You clearly havent been following the history of monetary policy with the FED over the years.

If you did, you'd be very much aware that there have been very few times in history where they havent overreacted and/or caused a slowdown in the economy from tightening . . . because they've been so late to pulling the punch bowl at the party.


Federal Funds Rate - 62 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

For the first time in his 20+ year career influencing public policy many are finally saying Lawrence Summers is right this year in his prediction of inflation.

But Summers didn't just predict inflation - he predicted an economic slowdown. We may see an economic slowdown but only if the Fed overreacts. I think if we didn't have partisan blinders we'd all agree that with zero interest rates and QE, we WANT inflation. The inflation and growth we are seeing is a sign that the fiscal stimulus is working.

The best end result would be the Fed GRADUALLY raising interest rates. If they can get their rate back up to 2% with real economic growth and modest inflation that would be a monumental success.

---

I'm sorry, but your post above clearly shows how "young" you are when it comes to the economy, financial markets, and monetary policy. More "cut and paste" from your favorite progressive politician perhaps?

In fact, if I were you I'd be asking for a "refund" from the school where you earned your MBA from.

Given your progressive politics . . . it's comical that you believe that we WANT inflation!
Inflation cripples the lower economic classes of our country because they are primarily renters.

The cost of rents and and owner's equivalent rents (OER), by far the largest share of the CPI, have risen only 3.5% and 3% in the past year. That's a fraction of the 14.3% rise in Zillow's Observed Rend Index and the 19.5% increase in the Case-Shiller Home Price Index. - - - Because of how they are calculated, OER and rents are notorious laggards and will pick up sharply at least through the end of 2023.

So, the lower economic wage earners (renters) are about to get absolutely CRUSHED BY INFLATION.
Do you really believe this is what Sanders and your economic "guru" Elizabeth Warren want to see happen?

For some bizarre reason, you are totally unaware of inflation's over-weighted negative impact on middle and lower income classes. This is Basic Econ 101a.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is so far behind the curve when it comes to dealing with inflation its not even funny. In case you havent noticed, real rates are dramatically negative. In fact, real short-term rates are at their lowest levels in 4 DECADES.

It's also terribly naive to think that the Fed has ever been successful when it comes to combating inflation in a gradual manner that doesnt cause an economic slowdown.

I literally blew my coffee back into my coffee mug when you said, "Only if the Fed overreacts"

You clearly havent been following the history of monetary policy with the FED over the years.

If you did, you'd be very much aware that there have been very few times in history where they havent overreacted and/or caused a slowdown in the economy from tightening . . . because they've been so late to pulling the punch bowl at the party.


Federal Funds Rate - 62 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends

---

It is unfortunate that you don't understand economics enough to know that no inflation with the Fed rates at zero is a very unhealthy signal from the economy. With Fed rates at zero (as they currently are), inflation is a sign that the economy is more healthy and the Fed rates should be increased. In fact, the Fed puts rates at zero with the goal of inflating the economy with economic growth and its side effect, higher prices. What we are seeing is a signal from the economy that it is working - time to take the foot off the gas.

It's also not a surprise that you are regurgitating drivel about inflation from the 1980's without having learned anything since then or about the context of the inflation we are experiencing today. In fact, today low income earners are experiencing real wage growth so they are, in fact, better off in the current economy.

Quote:

---

Inflation is high, but wage gains for low-income workers are higher
https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/inflation-wages-low-income-workers/

---

At the upper end of the wage scale, people like myself have experienced negative wage growth this year but the year has still been a bonanza because of a booming stock market and real estate market. It was a great year for me personally, despite my negative wage growth.

In the middle class, those who own assets are likely better off and those who don't own assets are likely worse off. This has pretty much been the case ever since establishment conservatives created the current economic paradigm back in the 1980's. Additionally, the debt held by the middle class (primarily mortgage debt) has reduced in value due to inflation. That is an additional buoy for the middle class.

Either way, we all agree it is time for the Fed to start raising interest rates. For the last decade+ it has been appropriate for real interest rates to be negative since the equilibrium interest rate has been negative (that is what it means to be stuck at the zero lower bound). Which brings us to your final self-contradictory final sentence:

Quote:

---

If you did, you'd be very much aware that there have been very few times in history where they havent overreacted and/or caused a slowdown in the economy from tightening . . . because they've been so late to pulling the punch bowl at the party.

---

It doesn't make any sense to claim that the Fed has overreacted because they were late to respond. Responding after the optimal time does not require pushing their levers too far. The Fed overreacts because they go into a panic from listening to hysterics like you. The Fed should not panic. They should GRADUALLY raise interest rates and let this boom gradually recede. With positive real wage growth at the low end and booming asset prices, more people are better off than not.

Dajo, perhaps I can assist this conversation by asking a direct question to clarify what I perceive as a misunderstanding. You stated above that "we WANT inflation"....

What percentage rate of inflation (range is fine) do you view as ideal?

concordtom said:

---

Dajo, perhaps I can assist this conversation by asking a direct question to clarify what I perceive as a misunderstanding. You stated above that "we WANT inflation"....

What percentage rate of inflation (range is fine) do you view as ideal?

---

Thank you for the clarifying question.

What I stated above is:

Quote:

---

with zero interest rates and QE, we WANT inflation

---

What I mean by that is, with zero interest rates and QE (in other words, with the Fed pushing hard on the economic accelerator), inflation is a signal the economy is healthy enough to raise interest rates up to a more normalized level above zero, which would bring inflation down. The Fed can take its foot off the accelerator.

What we have experienced the past decade is Fed rates at zero and no inflation and minimal economic growth. That is a sign of distress from the economy, which I have long argued means we need more government spending aimed at the low end to boost the economy, which, if done adequately, would have a side effect of inflation (note this is not the same as saying we need more deficits caused by tax cuts to the rich).

The pandemic has triggered this government spending aimed at the low end and states raising minimum wages has also helped. The economic signals we are seeing are the desired signals - economic growth so high that inflation is too high. Now it is time for the Fed to respond to those signals and GRADUALLY raise interest rates and cool off the economy.

To answer your specific question of what level of interest rate is ideal in normal circumstances (which we currently do not have), I think we want 2% - 4% inflation as long as that is driven by broad wage growth and accompanied by economic growth. Modest inflation driven by wage growth, grows the economy and helps debtors by eroding the value of debt over time. The real winners in that scenario are middle class homebuyers and young adults with student loans who purchase homes or get educated with debt and over 30 years see the cost of their debt decrease in real terms.

Article on inflation

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/inflation-to-slow-in-2022-but-still-above-fed-target-economist-161130410.html

dajo9 said:

---

To answer your specific question of what level of interest rate is ideal in normal circumstances (which we currently do not have), I think we want 2% - 4% inflation

---

I understand.
So, then, you would agree with Wags that the current 6.8% is too high?

And wags, same question to you:
What rate of inflation would you target?

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

To answer your specific question of what level of interest rate is ideal in normal circumstances (which we currently do not have), I think we want 2% - 4% inflation

---

So, then, you would agree with Wags that the current 6.8% is too high?

---

Yes, and I never said otherwise. 6.8% inflation in the current circumstances is a signal that the government has sufficiently boosted the economy and now it is time to take the foot off the gas and slightly cool off the economy. But it is also not time to overreact and drive the economy into the ground in the effort to kill off inflation.

Economics is all about finding the right equilibriums. There is no lever that says bring inflation to 2% - 4% driven by wage growth. In any case, if that level of inflation is caused by supply chains or supply shocks then that is bad. There is never a simple answer. You respond to signals and adjust.

dajo9 said:

---

It is unfortunate that you don't understand economics enough to know that no inflation with the Fed rates at zero is a very unhealthy signal from the economy. With Fed rates at zero (as they currently are), inflation is a sign that the economy is more healthy and the Fed rates should be increased. In fact, the Fed puts rates at zero with the goal of inflating the economy with economic growth and its side effect, higher prices. What we are seeing is a signal from the economy that it is working - time to take the foot off the gas.

---

You're understanding of how monetary policy works and who INFLATION benefits/harms is sophomoric at best.

You say that there has been NO INFLATION (until recently) and yet the stock market and housing markets have gone through the roof with valuations that most would say are in "bubble" territory.

You decry the immense wealth "gap" in this country and yet appear to have zero understanding that INFLATION benefits those that own ASSETS and punishes those that dont.

Your "WE NEED INFLATION" call hurts the very people that you seek to protect with all of your progressive political ideology. The lower classes who are impacted by high fuel costs, food costs, and rent get hammered. That's a fact.

You must have failed Econ. 1.

concordtom said:

---

Article on inflation

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/inflation-to-slow-in-2022-but-still-above-fed-target-economist-161130410.html

---

Thanks for the article. The article points out that the Fed targets inflation of 2%. I think it is silly for the Fed to target a specific number rather than a range. If inflation is 3% next year as predicted by the economist in the article, that is fine as long as it is driven by wage growth and accompanied by economic growth. For the Fed to see 3% inflation and think they have to tighten more is a policy mistake, in my opinion.

Also, note "core CPI" (which excludes food and energy) is 4.9%. Food and energy are notoriously volatile so most economists use "core CPI". The Fed should GRADUALLY raise rates but not go into panic mode and overdo it.

dajo9 said:

---

The pandemic has triggered this government spending aimed at the low end and states raising minimum wages has also helped. The economic signals we are seeing are the desired signals - economic growth so high that inflation is too high. Now it is time for the Fed to respond to those signals and GRADUALLY raise interest rates and cool off the economy.

---

The GDP for Q3 was at an annual rate of 2.0%
It was just recently revised to 2.3%

(FYI: Even excluding the -2.8% GDP in Obama's first quarter of Presidency, the average GDP for his two terms was 2.1%.
And guess where the fed funds rate was during both of his two terms: Literally Zero)

I dont know when the last time was that anyone considered 2.3% GDP growth HIGH.

Meanwhile, the core PCE (forget about using CPI, its not what the Fed watches) is currently at 4.7%
That's not a real good sign given the paltry GDP growth that we're experiencing.

The U.S. is a much more mature economic power with older demographics that do not support the kind of GDP growth that were seen previously. That's why anyone with a a basic understanding of Econ knew full well that Trump's claims of 4 - 5% GDP growth were a farce.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The pandemic has triggered this government spending aimed at the low end and states raising minimum wages has also helped. The economic signals we are seeing are the desired signals - economic growth so high that inflation is too high. Now it is time for the Fed to respond to those signals and GRADUALLY raise interest rates and cool off the economy.

---

The GDP for Q3 was at an annual rate of 2.0%
It was just recently revised to 2.3%

(FYI: Even excluding the -2.8% GDP in Obama's first quarter of Presidency, the average GDP for his two terms was 2.1%.
And guess where the fed funds rate was during both of his two terms: Literally Zero)

I dont know when the last time was that anyone considered 2.3% GDP growth HIGH.

The U.S. is a much more mature economic power with older demographics that do not support the kind of GDP growth that were seen previously. That's why anyone with a a basic understanding of Econ knew full well that Trump's claims of 4 - 5% GDP growth were a farce.

---

GDP is reported in real terms, in other words after being adjusted for inflation. Current dollar GDP (nominal GDP) is 8.4%.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It is unfortunate that you don't understand economics enough to know that no inflation with the Fed rates at zero is a very unhealthy signal from the economy. With Fed rates at zero (as they currently are), inflation is a sign that the economy is more healthy and the Fed rates should be increased. In fact, the Fed puts rates at zero with the goal of inflating the economy with economic growth and its side effect, higher prices. What we are seeing is a signal from the economy that it is working - time to take the foot off the gas.

---

You're understanding of how monetary policy works and who INFLATION benefits/harms is sophomoric at best.

You say that there has been NO INFLATION (until recently) and yet the stock market and housing markets have gone through the roof with valuations that most would say are in "bubble" territory.

You decry the immense wealth "gap" in this country and yet appear to have zero understanding that INFLATION benefits those that own ASSETS and punishes those that dont.

Your "WE NEED INFLATION" call hurts the very people that you seek to protect with all of your progressive political ideology. The lower classes who are impacted by high fuel costs, food costs, and rent get hammered. That's a fact.

You must have failed Econ. 1.

---

diablowags continues to show that he stopped learning sometime in the 1980's and he is commingling consumer inflation with asset inflation, which is not how any of this works, but is pretty common among people who have been consistently wrong on inflation for the past decade.

Anyone who says "inflation" in an economics discussion is referencing consumer inflation. If they want to reference a different kind of inflation, they need to state it. For example, "asset inflation".

dajo9 said:

---

diablowags continues to show that he stopped learning sometime in the 1980's and he is commingling consumer inflation with asset inflation, which is not how any of this works, but is pretty common among people who have been consistently wrong on inflation for the past decade.

Anyone who says "inflation" in an economics discussion is referencing consumer inflation. If they want to reference a different kind of inflation, they need to state it. For example, "asset inflation".

---

All this "expert" analysis from someone that doesnt even mention the PCE.
Shocking really.

Your knowledge base is incredibly poor. And the school where you got your MBA from owes your parents a refund. It's as if I'm talking to someone that has no clue about monetary policy . . . like Rachel Maddow.

Good luck with your "pie in the sky" fantasy that the FED will be able to raise interest rates GRADUALLY without creating an economic slowdown in order to cool off inflation. The Cat is already out of the bag. And as I have stated real interest rates are at a 4 DECADE LOW. For some reason you dont seem to grasp this, or the fact that the FED is terribly behind the curve!

My local Porsche dealership just sold a new 992 GT3 for $100,000 over MSRP.
Gee, why do you think that is?

The point that I've been making all along continues to go over your head:

Inflation is Always and Everywhere a Monetary Phenomenon

- - - Milton Friedman

concordtom said:

---

And wags, same question to you:
What rate of inflation would you target?

---

Still waiting.
Wags, I'm trying to help you out here.
I think you and dajo are not far apart. Nor I.
I just don't understand what you are so agitated about.

concordtom said:

---

concordtom said:

---

And wags, same question to you:
What rate of inflation would you target?

---

Still waiting.
Wags, I'm trying to help you out here.
I think you and dajo are not far apart. Nor I.
I just don't understand what you are so agitated about.

---

Honestly?

I'm tired of someone that always deflects and doesnt even acknowledge basic facts in evidence.
He's constantly making semi-related assertions, that are not productive in facilitating a genuine conversation.

He's actually calling for more INFLATION because he thinks that the wage gains by the poorer classes from inflation will make up for their increased costs in rents, food, and fuel. He couldnt be more naive.

I'm done here.
It's a waste of my time talking to the Bearinsider version of Rachel Maddow.

My man, you're just not making sense to me.

I was trying to break it down to stuff we could agree on.
Inflation: it's too high, but that some is desired. Dajo said it, do you?

If we (as humans) can discover what we agree on, it's easier to parse what we disagree on. That seems better than a vast food fight of angst.

I'll try one more time - do you agree that 2% inflation is the (reasonable) target? Do you hear dajo saying that current inflation is too high? Can you validate that?

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

diablowags continues to show that he stopped learning sometime in the 1980's and he is commingling consumer inflation with asset inflation, which is not how any of this works, but is pretty common among people who have been consistently wrong on inflation for the past decade.

Anyone who says "inflation" in an economics discussion is referencing consumer inflation. If they want to reference a different kind of inflation, they need to state it. For example, "asset inflation".

---

All this "expert" analysis from someone that doesnt even mention the PCE.
Shocking really.

Your knowledge base is incredibly poor. And the school where you got your MBA from owes your parents a refund. It's as if I'm talking to someone that has no clue about monetary policy . . . like Rachel Maddow.

Good luck with your "pie in the sky" fantasy that the FED will be able to raise interest rates GRADUALLY without creating an economic slowdown in order to cool off inflation. The Cat is already out of the bag. And as I have stated real interest rates are at a 4 DECADE LOW. For some reason you dont seem to grasp this, or the fact that the FED is terribly behind the curve!

My local Porsche dealership just sold a new 992 GT3 for $100,000 over MSRP.
Gee, why do you think that is?

The point that I've been making all along continues to go over your head:

Inflation is Always and Everywhere a Monetary Phenomenon

- - - Milton Friedman

---

Nobody has been proven more wrong over the last decade than Milton Friedman. I'd be embarrassed to quote him.

dajo9 said:

---

Nobody has been proven more wrong over the last decade than Milton Friedman. I'd be embarrassed to quote him.

---

That's not fair.
How was Milton supposed to know that a billion Chinese would walk off the farm and into factories so that they could buy all our debt?

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Nobody has been proven more wrong over the last decade than Milton Friedman. I'd be embarrassed to quote him.

---

That's not fair.
How was Milton supposed to know that a billion Chinese would walk off the farm and into factories so that they could buy all our debt?

---

Friedman's fallacy was that he believed the Fed could solve all economic policies through monetary policy and that fiscal policy was unnecessary. The last decade was ALL monetary policy and it failed to get us off the zero lower bound of Fed interest rates. Even with massive QE it failed except to apply jet fuel to wealth inequality. With the pandemic we have utilized immense fiscal policy and moved right off the zero lower bound.

DiabloWags said:

---

concordtom said:

---

concordtom said:

---

And wags, same question to you:
What rate of inflation would you target?

---

Still waiting.
Wags, I'm trying to help you out here.
I think you and dajo are not far apart. Nor I.
I just don't understand what you are so agitated about.

---

Honestly?

I'm tired of someone that always deflects and doesnt even acknowledge basic facts in evidence.
He's constantly making semi-related assertions, that are not productive in facilitating a genuine conversation.

He's actually calling for more INFLATION because he thinks that the wage gains by the poorer classes from inflation will make up for their increased costs in rents, food, and fuel. He couldnt be more naive.

I'm done here.
It's a waste of my time talking to the Bearinsider version of Rachel Maddow.

---

Wait! Aren't there still several remaining BI posters who still need to be set straight on one topic or another?

Hello...I'm Elizabeth Warren. I'm a Cherokee In dian because my great grandfather had high cheekbones. So, please give me extra preference whenever I apply for anything under the sun. She got her "extra preferences" all the way from undergraduate school through Law school. Years later, she took a DNA test. Oops!!!!!Turns out those 'high cheekbones" didn't mean a thing...This babe has the nerve and balls to constantly lecture 'we deplorables" on ethics and morals. Of course. This is a liberal speciality.