Hillary on Democrats' Plans

[Guest MikeSC]

The leftiest big city on the Left Coast was Clinton country on Monday, with former President Clinton continuing his blockbuster book tour and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton headlining a Democratic fund-raiser where she vowed to defeat the Republicans' "extraordinarily ruthless machine."

 

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

 

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

 

Just blocks away at San Francisco's historic Ferry Building, President Clinton kicked off the latest leg of his West Coast tour promoting his best-selling book, "My Life." Wearing a navy blue suit and a rust-colored tie, Clinton signed books for at least 3,000 people, many of whom had waited hours under brilliant sunshine to catch a glimpse of him.

 

At one point, Clinton stopped the fast-moving line of fans to pose for a photo with 14-year-old Thomas Nelson and his 12-year-old brother Joseph, who had traveled 50 miles with their father from Petaluma.

 

"I've never shaken the hand of a president," said Thomas, who added that he had one grandma who couldn't stand Clinton and one who thought he was the best president ever.

 

"Even better than George Washington," said Thomas.

 

As president, Clinton visited California some 70 times and focused much of his political and fund-raising energies on the heavily Democratic San Francisco Bay Area. The visits by both Clintons increased while their daughter, Chelsea, was a student at Stanford University in Palo Alto.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cf...62904n_clintons

Party might need to shut her up. "We'll raise your taxes" seldom sounds good in a campaign.

 

And a guy's grandmother thinks Clinton is a better President than WASHINGTON? Well, we know which of the two has Alzheimer's.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Party might need to shut her up. "We'll raise your taxes" seldom sounds good in a campaign.

 

Maybe in inproper context. But she's talking to the "liberal elite," who are plenty wealthy. There's millions upon millions of votes that don't care about their taxes going up.

[Guest MikeSC]

Party might need to shut her up. "We'll raise your taxes" seldom sounds good in a campaign.

 

Maybe in inproper context. But she's talking to the "liberal elite," who are plenty wealthy.

And the GOP will use this to nail them. And they can't bitch because she flat-out said it.

 

This will effectively kill their whole hopes of gaining the Senate or the House. All the GOP has to do is throw this on any piece of campaign literature they send out.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And the GOP will use this to nail them.

Yes, and the readers will really care because she wants to raise Barbara Streisand's taxes.

 

 

 

Again, these are the same people the Right claims are so wealthy that they're way out-of-touch with the rest of America. I don't think the GOP will be able to shed any tears for them, or convince anyone else to.

 

If Hillary was saying this to a bunch of mid-class workers, that'd be different.

[Guest MikeSC]

And the GOP will use this to nail them.

Yes, and the readers will really care because she wants to raise Barbara Streisand's taxes.

 

Again, these are the same people the Right claims are so wealthy that they're way out-of-touch with the rest of America. I don't think the GOP will be able to shed any tears for them, or convince anyone else to.

 

If Hillary was saying this to a bunch of mid-class workers, that'd be different.

I love that you don't seem to care who is being referred to when the Democrats utter the phrase "the rich".

 

They've been defining "rich" down for years. Who is rich? Families earning $100,000? Personally, that she won't put down a concrete figure as to what constitutes "rich" should worry folks.

 

Hillary said it there BECAUSE she wouldn't get booed.

 

It'll be mentioned to middle-classers later.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

They've been defining "rich" down for years. Who is rich? Families earning $100,000? Personally, that she won't put down a concrete figure as to what constitutes "rich" should worry folks.

 

Hillary said it there BECAUSE she wouldn't get booed.

 

It'll be mentioned to middle-classers later.

-=Mike

Now you're just doing party shit-flinging.

 

I just simply answered what you previously said. Yes, with a fair amount of KONTEXT-AWAY it could sound like bad news to middle America. Taken in proper context, most of middle America wouldn't give a shit.

[Guest MikeSC]

They've been defining "rich" down for years. Who is rich? Families earning $100,000? Personally, that she won't put down a concrete figure as to what constitutes "rich" should worry folks.

 

Hillary said it there BECAUSE she wouldn't get booed.

 

It'll be mentioned to middle-classers later.

            -=Mike

Now you're just doing party shit-flinging.

 

I just simply answered what you previously said. Yes, with a fair amount of KONTEXT-AWAY it could sound like bad news to middle America. Taken in proper context, most of middle America wouldn't give a shit.

That it can IMPACT middle America --- they WILL give a shit.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't think so. After Ken, Martha, and others, the middle class' view of the upper crust is at a low for recent times.

 

Republicans would be outraged, of course, it goes against their M.O. Dems and swings will notice it as the same old bullshit party attack we've always seen.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think so. After Ken, Martha, and others, the middle class' view of the upper crust is at a low for recent times.

 

Republicans would be outraged, of course, it goes against their M.O. Dems and swings will notice it as the same old bullshit party attack we've always seen.

Republicans will simply mention what constituted "rich" in the past to the Dems and that the numbers defining rich won't be going up. They'll be defining it down further.

 

This is gonna be a disaster for the Dems.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And then maybe we'll have some definitive numbers, and we'll see how people will react.

 

I firmly believe that "rich" will be pretty rich, though. Bill O'Reilly goes on about how the Dems want to raise his taxes, but we're not even talking Bill O'Reilly rich (and he is pretty wealthy.) We're talking the top 1%, insanely rich wealthy.

 

Most Dems agree the rich are getting a free ride right now anyway. As Warren Buffet put it, "there's class warfare in this country, and my class is winning."

[Guest MikeSC]

And then maybe we'll have some definitive numbers, and we'll see how people will react.

 

I firmly believe that "rich" will be pretty rich, though. Bill O'Reilly goes on about how the Dems want to raise his taxes, but we're not even talking Bill O'Reilly rich (and he is pretty wealthy.) We're talking the top 1%, insanely rich wealthy.

 

Most Dems agree the rich are getting a free ride right now anyway. As Warren Buffet put it, "there's class warfare in this country, and my class is winning."

Yet Buffett doesn't offer to pay more. Odd. He could remove himself from ALL tax shelters and ALL tax protections if he so chose to.

 

And your naivete as to whom the Dems are targeting for tax hikes is almost endearing.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Nah, I'm pretty sure I've got it right.

 

Your guess is based on the slippery slope theory, for one.

[Guest MikeSC]

Nah, I'm pretty sure I've got it right.

 

Your guess is based on the slippery slope theory, for one.

No, you REALLY don't. The "rich" during Clinton involved families making $100,000. In places like NYC, that is HARDLY rich.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I am almost positive "the rich" is also applying to many of the corporations that basically don't pay taxes, period as well.

 

Also, we repeatidly hear them say, "The top 5%" and $100,000/yr is not in the top 5%.

[Guest MikeSC]

I am almost positive "the rich" is also applying to many of the corporations that basically don't pay taxes, period as well.

 

Also, we repeatidly hear them say, "The top 5%" and $100,000/yr is not in the top 5%.

We hear them SAY a lot of things.

 

What they propose and what they say don't often tend to mesh.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I am almost positive "the rich" is also applying to many of the corporations that basically don't pay taxes, period as well.

 

Also, we repeatidly hear them say, "The top 5%" and $100,000/yr is not in the top 5%.

We hear them SAY a lot of things.

 

What they propose and what they say don't often tend to mesh.

-=Mike

well then I am sure the democrats are happy to have YOU around to sort everything out for everyone.

[Guest MikeSC]

I am almost positive "the rich" is also applying to many of the corporations that basically don't pay taxes, period as well.

 

Also, we repeatidly hear them say, "The top 5%" and $100,000/yr is not in the top 5%.

We hear them SAY a lot of things.

 

What they propose and what they say don't often tend to mesh.

-=Mike

well then I am sure the democrats are happy to have YOU around to sort everything out for everyone.

Well, they live and die for the naivete of you.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

I am almost positive "the rich" is also applying to many of the corporations that basically don't pay taxes, period as well.

 

Also, we repeatidly hear them say, "The top 5%" and $100,000/yr is not in the top 5%.

We hear them SAY a lot of things.

 

What they propose and what they say don't often tend to mesh.

-=Mike

well then I am sure the democrats are happy to have YOU around to sort everything out for everyone.

Well, they live and die for the naivete of you.

-=Mike

well considering I have never voted for a democrat, or the fact that you are willing to say "look this group of politicians they are bad, but this other group of politicians over here is good" and I'd be willing to say YOU are the naive one

[Guest MikeSC]

well considering I have never voted for a democrat, or the fact that you are willing to say "look this group of politicians they are bad, but this other group of politicians over here is good" and I'd be willing to say YOU are the naive one

Hardly. If the GOP said they plan on raising taxes on a nebulous group, I wouldn't trust them, either.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

And then maybe we'll have some definitive numbers, and we'll see how people will react.

 

I firmly believe that "rich" will be pretty rich, though. Bill O'Reilly goes on about how the Dems want to raise his taxes, but we're not even talking Bill O'Reilly rich (and he is pretty wealthy.) We're talking the top 1%, insanely rich wealthy.

 

Most Dems agree the rich are getting a free ride right now anyway. As Warren Buffet put it, "there's class warfare in this country, and my class is winning."

I'm pretty sure she means people that make around 120k and up. When you hit that level is when taxes really start pounding you.

 

And I have a major problem with this. Making a little over 6 figures almost isn't worth it when you get into taxes. It's insane that someone makes 120k and is lucky to bring home 75k of it. And people seem to find that completely ok and want to tax the upper brackets even more. I don't care how much someone makes, it's totally unfair that someone has to hand over half of their earnings to the government. So what if O'Reilly is a wealthy guy, he worked for his money and he should be able to keep more of it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, let's say a billionaire and a poor guy pay the EXACT same rate in taxes.

 

The billionaire will STILL pay SEVERAL TIMES more money in taxes.

 

I don't agree with this whole "Paying your fair share" stuff. As if the wealthy use gov't services SEVERAL TIMES more than others.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

And then maybe we'll have some definitive numbers, and we'll see how people will react.

 

I firmly believe that "rich" will be pretty rich, though. Bill O'Reilly goes on about how the Dems want to raise his taxes, but we're not even talking Bill O'Reilly rich (and he is pretty wealthy.) We're talking the top 1%, insanely rich wealthy.

 

Most Dems agree the rich are getting a free ride right now anyway. As Warren Buffet put it, "there's class warfare in this country, and my class is winning."

I'm pretty sure she means people that make around 120k and up. When you hit that level is when taxes really start pounding you.

 

And I have a major problem with this. Making a little over 6 figures almost isn't worth it when you get into taxes. It's insane that someone makes 120k and is lucky to bring home 75k of it. And people seem to find that completely ok and want to tax the upper brackets even more. I don't care how much someone makes, it's totally unfair that someone has to hand over half of their earnings to the government. So what if O'Reilly is a wealthy guy, he worked for his money and he should be able to keep more of it.

well the upper 5% is not 120k and up. So unless the Dems are bold-faced liars on this issue(which they very well may be) then I wouldn't worry about barely hitting the six figure mark.

[NoCalMike 0]

Hell, let's say a billionaire and a poor guy pay the EXACT same rate in taxes.

 

The billionaire will STILL pay SEVERAL TIMES more money in taxes.

 

I don't agree with this whole "Paying your fair share" stuff. As if the wealthy use gov't services SEVERAL TIMES more than others.

-=Mike

well it is true that a lot of corporations hide income/profit and usually get out of paying most or all of their taxes. Think of how much more tax revenue would be collected if they paid up.

[Vyce 0]

I honestly wish Rudy would run against her when her Senate reelection comes up, because I'm convinced he'd beat the tar out of her.

 

That aside......look, I don't care how much one is in love with the Clinton presidency, calling him the greatest president ever is just ridiculous.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, let's say a billionaire and a poor guy pay the EXACT same rate in taxes.

 

The billionaire will STILL pay SEVERAL TIMES more money in taxes.

 

I don't agree with this whole "Paying your fair share" stuff. As if the wealthy use gov't services SEVERAL TIMES more than others.

            -=Mike

well it is true that a lot of corporations hide income/profit and usually get out of paying most or all of their taxes. Think of how much more tax revenue would be collected if they paid up.

Blame Congress for using the tax code to play social architect.

 

BTW, again, it's funny to hear Buffett decry how the rich are getting too easy a deal and, yet, does anybody wish to bet that he doesn't take advantage of tax loopholes?

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

This worked wonders for Mondale's campaign, didn't it? Oh, it didn't. The middle class are the ones always hurt the worst by these types of policies whether they realize it or not. Most middle class people ARE considered rich enough to be taxed heavily by these policies while the poor don't get effected at all, while the "really rich" aren't hurt anyway since they make so much to begin with. I can never understand the bitching about tax cuts "hurting the poor" when by and large they don't pay high taxes to begin with, while those that do, get there money back. Yes, the richest get more because they pay more. It's like a jealousy factor of "if you can have something, but I can't, even though nothing of mine is taken away Im gonna make sure you don't have it either". Oh, and Hilary just infuriates me. Hate every word that comes out of this woman's mouth and this is coming from someone who doesn't mind Bill and thought he was a good President (although I was young during his terms). I hope Kerry doesn't even remotely consider her as a running mate or it would be the kiss of death for him...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So what if O'Reilly is a wealthy guy, he worked for his money and he should be able to keep more of it.

We're not even talking about Bill O'Reilly here, we're talking the class higher than him. The Gates/Buffett/etc billionaire's club.

 

I don't know what Hillary is considering but this is what Kerry's people had been talking about.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

But they need to be very clear about it. It seems whenever they start talking about the rich paying their fair share they mean everyone that makes 120k up. Like I said earlier that's the point where taxes hammer you relentlessly.

[Guest MikeSC]

So what if O'Reilly is a wealthy guy, he worked for his money and he should be able to keep more of it.

We're not even talking about Bill O'Reilly here, we're talking the class higher than him. The Gates/Buffett/etc billionaire's club.

 

I don't know what Hillary is considering but this is what Kerry's people had been talking about.

Thing is --- that's NOT who they're talking about. Do you think taxing that tiny percentage massively (many of whom, mind you, are their supporters) is going to make a dent in ANYTHING?

 

You're going with an assumption of "rich" being J.P Morgan-level money. In the Democratic view --- it's not even CLOSE to that.

 

You keep thinking "Tax the rich" means "Tax the guy from the 'Monopoly' board game". "Tax the rich" now means anybody making 6 figures.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You keep thinking "Tax the rich" means "Tax the guy from the 'Monopoly' board game".

Nah. Tax the rich means people who are approaching $100 million a year. A smidgen more to them means a hell of a lot more than a smidge to the people living near the bottom.