CASTELLANOS: There's a difference between 3.2, which is -- trillion which is what the president's plan would cost and then another 700 billion which is what the Republicans would add. However, the economic --
(CROSSTALK)
CASTELLANOS: -- and -- no the economic argument is this. We are in a connected society now. Can you tax just the rich people's side of the water bucket? Can you take money out of that? We've just seen Wall Street melt down and everybody's homes lose value. I think both sides have an economic as well political argument here that is this the time to take that much money out of the private sector --
Sorry Alex but the only part of that "bucket" most of us are seeing is the little bit the rich have decided to allow to trickle down our heads and it ain't water that's trickling down. Here's Rand Paul with some similar nonsense.
"I would say that [Democrats] must be in favor of a second American depression, because if you raise taxes to that consequence, that’s what will happen in this country," Paul told CNN host Wolf Blitzer.
"What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?" Blitzer asked.
"Well, the thing is, we're all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor," Paul explained. "You remember a few years ago, when they tried to tax the yachts, that didn’t work."
"You know who lost their jobs?" he continued. "The people making the boats, the guys making 50,000 and 60,000 dollars a year lost their jobs. We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone. Let’s not punish anyone. Let’s keep taxes low and let’s cut spending."