Hillary Clinton

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:06 am

I disagree with the characterization of First Lady as "Co-President".
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:29 am

I also wouldn't characterize Trump with having honesty as one of his virtues. His dishonesty is just a different brand than Hillary. Whereas Hillary is like you said, a weather vain, Trump will just start from a completely dishonest position, like Obama being born in Kenya and then double down or avoid the subject instead of publicly changing his position.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby RiverDog » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:17 am

c_hawkbob wrote:I disagree with the characterization of First Lady as "Co-President".


In most administrations, you're right, referring to the First Lady as a Co President is not accurate. But in the Clinton Administration ('93-'01), the characterization is very appropriate, and I stand by it.

And Kal, I'm not lauding Trump's honesty as some sort of core value with him. I was speaking to just one subject, that is having a moral compass, a guiding principle. I think Trump is honest in what he believes in, whether you think that belief to be right, wrong, or indifferent, sort of like what my dad used to say about George Wallace even though he didn't support him. At least you know what you're getting if you vote for him. You can't say that about Hillary. She is a chameleon, and will change her position to what ever it takes to maximize her popularity. Of course, she's not the first politician to be without a guiding principle, only the latest. With her, it runs in the family. Her pseudo husband had a similar lack of principle.

And let me repeat, I am by no means indicating my support for Trump, quite the contrary. If these two individuals win their respective party's nominations, it will shake my confidence in our two party system as much or more as the OJ trial shook my confidence in our system of justice. Perhaps it's time to turn back the page and let the parties select their candidates in smoke filled rooms.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby monkey » Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:34 am

Old but Slow wrote:While I am not a big Hillary fan, I would vote for her if there is no better option. The republicans are not providing an option at this point. Do any of these yo-yos have an idea about international relations? Any of them have a better option than bomb Iran? Are there any better opinions than same sex marriage, abortion, or transgender rights? Any thoughts about the economy, for instance? Or dealing with the MIddle East? None of the Repubs have given any idea of a plan, so what are we supposed to support. "I'm a hot commodity, so I will lead the country" Give me a break.


I don't think you're actually looking...I think you've already made up your mind otherwise you would have noticed that Marco Rubio called out EXACTLY what the Russians are doing and why they are doing it, during the debates, well before it actually happened. That was some nearly prophetic ideas about international relations.
Several of them have now submitted rather detailed tax plans, and plans to right the economy.
Almost every one of them has mentioned backing Israel again, (a reversal of courses from the current administration), clearly a signal of how thye intend to handle the middle East.
It's OK that you are a Democratic leaning old school Lib OBS, :D but what you just said there isn't really accurate to be fair. The Republicans have been every bit as detailed, and more than the Dems, who in their debates pretty much just jousted over who was going to give away the most free stuff, (free health care, fee college, free lunches, apparently at no one's expense, just like magic) and who loved socialism the most.
That's some scary crap right there.
User avatar
monkey
Legacy
 
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:37 am

Old but Slow wrote:While the Repubs want to give more free stuff to the rich and big corporations. And the Pentagon gets more while admitting that they can't account for $2.5 trillion.


But, but ... God and guns!

Lets keep our priorities straight dammit.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:55 am

While the Repubs want to give more free stuff to the rich and big corporations.


Name the Republican candidate whose platform includes increasing "free stuff" to "the rich" and big corporations, ObS.

And the Pentagon gets more while admitting that they can't account for $2.5 trillion.


So you're a small(er) government guy. Me, too.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby RiverDog » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:33 am

Old but Slow wrote:While the Repubs want to give more free stuff to the rich and big corporations. And the Pentagon gets more while admitting that they can't account for $2.5 trillion.


Do you even bother to check out their position on issues that matter to you? Or do you move on to the next candidate once you see that capital 'R' next to their name?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby Hawktown » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:48 pm

Do you even bother to check out their position on issues that matter to you? Or do you move on to the next candidate once you see that capital 'R' next to their name?[/quote]

I personally like to ignore their position on all issues and when I see the ballot I put " NO ONE IS CAPABLE" in the write in slot, regardless of R, D, L or whatever they would like to label themselves like some political gangster (crips or bloods), lol. This shows just how much trust I have in anything any of them can offer. If it were up to me they would all be in prison and WE THE PEOPLE would take this b**** back over FOR THE PEOPLE. Just like Iceland did, WE CAN DO HERE!!! http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/icelander ... -us-media/
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Wed Oct 21, 2015 2:57 pm

Name the Republican candidate whose platform includes increasing "free stuff" to "the rich" and big corporations, ObS.


Are you still working on your reply to this, ObS?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:27 am

Are you implying that none of the R candidates want to cut taxes for the wealthy


No- I'm outright stating it. However, perhaps you know something I don't, which is why I asked you for the name.

So again, which candidate is arguing for lowering taxes on wealthy people?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:38 am

I voted for Richard Nixon (twice), and liked Governor Dan Evans very much, but the Republican party has moved too far to the right for me now.


Try to imagine JFK or Bill Clinton trying to get elected as a Democrat today. Hillary has been forced to reject virtually every position her husband held, and virtually every position *she* held even 7 years ago.

I agree the Rs have moved right on some things, ObS, but nobody but fringe nuts are arguing to eliminate the government for heaven's sake.

"The Feds have enough tax revenue already" and "We can't afford the entitlements we have as currently structured" are hardly radical statements.

Actually, I do look at what all the candidates have to say


No offense, ObS, but you *plainly* do not. It's natural to only listen to 'news' you want to hear (we all do it to some degree), but you're arguing against bad caricatures.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:41 am

burrrton wrote:[
Try to imagine JFK or Bill Clinton trying to get elected as a Democrat today. Hillary has been forced to reject virtually every position her husband held, and virtually every position *she* held even 7 years ago.


That is only because of Bernie Sanders presence in the race building a lot of support from young first time voters that Hillary needs. But really the only prominent democrats that are far left are Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Unless we see a resurgence of progressive congressmen in the next cycle, hard core progressives are going the way of Olympia Snowe. Even Obama is very much a moderate despite the attempts of some people in the right wing to paint him as a socialist. His trade deal is straight up conservative. Even the affordable care act is built on a republican generated framework, a framework that existed prior to Obama taking office.

For the most part both parties have shifted to the right. Bill Clinton and JFK could win the Dem nomination quite easily, especially now that the climate is such that no one would really care about his affairs. Either one of them in the race would pretty much immediately take away Hillary's base (with the exception maybe of people who being a woman factors into their vote). Bill Clinton would have a much harder time winning the nomination in the past than now.

Also just as an aside, I'm not sure which republican tax plans you are reading because pretty much every one of them wants to cut taxes, with the biggest cuts going to the wealthy. Trump, Jeb, Rubio all of them. Some of them dress it up better than others, but at the end of the day it will result in a large reduction in tax liability placed on the upper tax bracket. Maybe you are in favor of that, maybe you aren't but it's pretty much the bedrock of republican tax policy right now. I don't get why you are acting like OBS is just puling that out of nowhere.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:48 am

For the most part both parties have shifted to the right.


On some things, the Dems have shifted right, and on other things, the Repubs have shifted left. I'd submit you only think both have shifted right because the starting point of your evaluation is roughly what Bernie Sanders/Code Pink/Occupy Wall Street believe- any proposal that doesn't *completely* soak successful people and/or evil corporations, or that promotes anything other than solar power, is considered some kind of bizarre concession to Republicans.

I don't think that phenomenon is limited to Dems (half the Repub voting "base" thinks every Republican in office is a closet lefty), but don't kid yourself.

. Bill Clinton and JFK could win the Dem nomination quite easily


I'm not going to go back and forth on this if you think the Dems have shifted right, but let's be clear: JFK was for lowering taxes and a (very) strong national defense (among many other things)- he wouldn't *sniff* the Dem nomination today.

You can say "Yeah, but Sanders!", but that doesn't change anything any more than someone saying "Yeah, but Tea Party!" would excuse the Repubs. Whatever the reasons, the Dem party platform is Socialism Lite (soak the rich, more and more government control, etc and so on).

Also just as an aside, I'm not sure which republican tax plans you are reading because pretty much every one of them wants to cut taxes, with the biggest cuts going to the wealthy.


I haven't read every one of them (I'm not reading Trump's anything), but I'll get back on this later- gotta golf.

Here's a quick question, though, that will tell me where we're starting: is a 'flat tax' (or 'fair tax') a "tax cut for the wealthy" in your opinion?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:46 am

It depends on the rate of the flat tax. But pretty much every flat tax plan I've seen lowers the tax rate on the upper brackets. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a tax cut for the wealthy because they are paying less in taxes. The only thing that is a matter of opinion is whether that is "fair" or "right".

My opinion on the flat tax is that it sounds good in theory but would never work in practice. When I was young I was all in on the flat tax because it just makes sense on the surface. Once you start actually looking at the implications though it's an utter mess. In terms of a "fair" tax I think it would be more appropriate to tax consumerism. But then you'd have to completely rewrite the tax code because there are still a lot of loopholes.

Also you are misrepresenting JFK in the way a lot of democrats misrepresent Reagan by talking about how he raised taxes 11 times without mentioning the massive tax cut at the start of his presidency. Context matters. Tax rates at the time he came into office were still at WWII levels. He wasn't trying to bring them down to the levels that Republicans would like them at. Not even close. His tax plan fit well within the framework of the current Democratic party. Bernie is the only person that would like to see a return to Roosevelt era tax policy. Democrats are not opposed to cutting taxes as an absolute philosophy. They are just opposed to the tax cuts that the Republicans would like to institute.

You did show your slip though calling the democrats socialist lite. If you think the democrats are anywhere close to classic socialism you need to go do some research. Even Bernie isn't a true socialist and he's the most radical voice. And remember he's running for the democratic nomination but he was elected as an independent who just caucused with the Dems, so he's not representative of the party. And this like above is not a matter of opinion. It's just a fact. Democrats are no more socialist lite (extreme liberalism) than Republicans are fascist lite (extreme conservatism). Long past time we stop being so hyperbolic.

If you consider what the Democrats propose as socialism, then the Republicans are equally socialist just in different ways. By providing enormous subsidies and tax breaks for corporations they are allowing companies to not pay "their fair share" as republicans are so fond of saying.

The right loves to wield "fair share" and "wealth redistribution" around with reckless abandon but their ideas incorporate all kinds of wealth redistribution and entitlements. They just redistribute in a different way and different people benefit directly. And which policies you subscribe to generally boils down to whether you believe in supply side economics.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:40 pm

But pretty much every flat tax plan I've seen lowers the tax rate on the upper brackets. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a tax cut for the wealthy because they are paying less in taxes.


So, how about if we cut the Federal gas tax in half- is that a Tax Cut For Truck Drivers™ because they'll save the most? Of course not, unless you want to turn low-info soccer moms against long-haul drivers for votes.

A tax cut for *everybody* is a "tax cut for the wealthy" only to demagogue-ing, dishonest pedants, and portraying it as such reeks of the most base, 'turn one group against another' bullshit.

A flat rate (or a couple tiers) with some deduction (most seem to be around $30-50K for a family of 4?) would give the biggest breaks to lower income people, and would still be very progressive in nature.

Dems just can't admit to supporting such a thing because the class warfare rhetoric is too big a tool in their arsenal.

If you think the democrats are anywhere close to classic socialism you need to go do some research.


Dude, you have a self-professed, capital "S" (classic) Socialist running a strong second in your primary race, and there are dmn few positions on which he and your front-runner disagree.

She's probably more hawkish than he, and I'm not convinced she'd actually act on most of the nonsense she's being forced to embrace due to her party's leftward lurch, but that doesn't make the party's platform any less 'socialist' (small "S", meaning moving that direction, not emulating Stalin).

If you consider what the Democrats propose as socialism, then...


I don't, and I think it's ridiculous when right-wingers call it that. I also think it's equally stupid when left-wingers say they like "Socialism"- it just shows they have no idea what actual Socialism is.

By providing enormous subsidies and tax breaks for corporations they are allowing companies to not pay "their fair share" as republicans are so fond of saying.


Huh? "TEH FAIR SHARE!" is virtually a Tourette's-style nervous tick for Democrat candidates.

Which Republican candidate have you seen rail on about "fair share"? Honest question.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:58 pm

While the problem is absolutely an inequity in who is paying how much taxes, but the solution isn't a flat tax. The solution is taxing spending instead of taxing earnings.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:06 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:While the problem is absolutely an inequity in who is paying how much taxes, but the solution isn't a flat tax. The solution is taxing spending instead of taxing earnings.


I don't think that's a bad recommendation, Bob, with the "instead of" being key. However:

What inequity do you see in who pays how much of our tax burden??

Our tax system is already the most progressive in the industrialized world ("THE RICH" support WAY more of our system than their income should indicate).

Endlessly whining for us to shift more and more of the tax burden upward is counter-productive. Worse, though, it's adolescent 'politics of envy' claptrap. "Because he can!" is not a reasonable answer to "Why should he pay more?"
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby RiverDog » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:15 am

c_hawkbob wrote:While the problem is absolutely an inequity in who is paying how much taxes, but the solution isn't a flat tax. The solution is taxing spending instead of taxing earnings.


There is a proposal out there that's been lingering for a couple of decades that does just that. It's called the National Retail Sales Tax, or "Fair Tax".

https://fairtax.org/about

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... ve/retail/

I haven't looked at it very closely for several years, but my understanding is that for all retail transactions, including business transactions, services, etc, a 23% tax would be levied at the cash register. The states would be responsible for collecting the tax, and given something like 1% to cover the cost of collection. It would get rid of the IRS and an entire industry of tax accountants. It's been successfully implemented in several other countries, but obviously none on the scale of the American economy.

But there are a couple of big problems with it. One is that it is a tax on accumulated wealth, and for me being a guy about to retire, I have a significant amount of funds that I have already paid taxes on that's going to be taxed again when I use it to buy something. So essentially every fund I own is going to take a 23% hit. What the government would be saying to you is that if you were smart, saved money rather than spend it, made some good financial decisions, we're going to penalize you by charging you another 23% on anything you buy or service you use. Not a great lesson to be teaching, not exactly "fair". There would also be a significant boom/bust in the economy as people would go on a spending spree to stock up on as many goods and services they could up to the date that the tax is implemented then there would be a huge slow down that would last for months, and depending on what else is going on at the time, almost certainly would trigger a major recession, perhaps a depression. Consumables like food and beverages wouldn't be hit for very long, less than a year before everyone used up their inventory, but major things like autos, boats, homes, etc, would experience a years long downturn as people generally don't have to buy a new home, car, or boat and can make do or go without for a very long time.

The only way this ever gets enacted into law is if a leading POTUS candidate adopts it as one of their major campaign issues, wins a general election, and has his/her party controlling both the House and the Senate. It would also require a constitutional amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment that created the income tax, which would mean that the issue would have to go to the states for a lengthy ratification process requiring 2/3's approval, so it's probably not going to occur in my lifetime.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:36 am

Burrrton I always kind of suspected the whole socialism thing cinches it. Anyone who is actually knoweldgabe about the subject and is being intellectually honest about it recognizes that calling the Democrats socialists or even trying to link them to socialis is nothing more than propogandist bullshit. Either you don't know what real socialism is or you're not interested in an honest discussion. There isn't middle ground. If it's the former I would love for you to do some real research on the subject and we can continue having the civil back and forths we've had over the years, if not I'm going to have to bow out of this respectfully. Calling the dems socialist is like saying you're against free speech because you agree it should be illegal to not yell fire in a crowded theater. Again... even Bernie isn't a true socialist. He is actually socialist lite that you just tried to paint the entire party with. If the rest of the democratic party embraced his agenda then you would have a point but they don't. He is far to the left of the rest of the party because once again he is a democrat in name only. He's truly an independent that is couching himself in the Democratic party because of the way our two party system works. He's a democrat like Ron Paul is a republican. Now would you say that the Republican Party is on board with legalizing prostitution and drugs simply because Ron Paul ran as a republican? This is the stuff I'm talking about that gets in the way of an honest debate. All anyone want to do is spew talking points.

You're gas tax example doesn't wash. That's a tax on consumerism like both I and Bob suggested as being a better example of "fair" taxing if you could pull it off. Not to mention since Truck drivers are spending gas money as a business expense they are getting deductions. The flat tax plans that are being put forward are simply not economically feasible. If you cut everyone's taxes there isn't enough money to run the government. The only way you could continue to fund the government with a flat tax is to find the mid point where the upper tax brackets would be lowered and the lower tax brackets would be raised. It's simple math. What you are talking about is pie in the sky. There is a reason why a flat tax has never been a serious proposition even by conservatives in the past. It doesn't work.

The U.S. may have the most progressive tax plan in the world in terms of tax burden but you also need to look at how the tax money is spent. Other countries can afford to be less progressive and raise the tax burden on the less wealthy because people are guaranteed a living wage and have their healthcare and education paid for (among other things). They also have microscopic defense spending compared to the United States, not just in total but per capita. And that keeps society running. But you're against all of that. Sooooo.... Now we're right back at square one.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:39 am

RiverDog wrote:
But there are a couple of big problems with it. One is that it is a tax on accumulated wealth, and for me being a guy about to retire, I have a significant amount of funds that I have already paid taxes on that's going to be taxed again when I use it to buy something. So essentially every fund I own is going to take a 23% hit.


Yep Riv that's one of the problems with it. How do you deal with the wealth that people have alredy have taxed. I think the consumer tax makes the most sense but there are so many challenges in getting something like that ratified and we can't even get a budget done at the present time. How are we going to overhaul the tax code to that degree?
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:34 am

RiverDog wrote:
There is a proposal out there that's been lingering for a couple of decades that does just that. It's called the National Retail Sales Tax, or "Fair Tax".

https://fairtax.org/about

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing ... ve/retail/

I haven't looked at it very closely for several years, but my understanding is that for all retail transactions, including business transactions, services, etc, a 23% tax would be levied at the cash register. The states would be responsible for collecting the tax, and given something like 1% to cover the cost of collection. It would get rid of the IRS and an entire industry of tax accountants. It's been successfully implemented in several other countries, but obviously none on the scale of the American economy.

But there are a couple of big problems with it. One is that it is a tax on accumulated wealth, and for me being a guy about to retire, I have a significant amount of funds that I have already paid taxes on that's going to be taxed again when I use it to buy something. So essentially every fund I own is going to take a 23% hit. What the government would be saying to you is that if you were smart, saved money rather than spend it, made some good financial decisions, we're going to penalize you by charging you another 23% on anything you buy or service you use. Not a great lesson to be teaching, not exactly "fair". There would also be a significant boom/bust in the economy as people would go on a spending spree to stock up on as many goods and services they could up to the date that the tax is implemented then there would be a huge slow down that would last for months, and depending on what else is going on at the time, almost certainly would trigger a major recession, perhaps a depression. Consumables like food and beverages wouldn't be hit for very long, less than a year before everyone used up their inventory, but major things like autos, boats, homes, etc, would experience a years long downturn as people generally don't have to buy a new home, car, or boat and can make do or go without for a very long time.

The only way this ever gets enacted into law is if a leading POTUS candidate adopts it as one of their major campaign issues, wins a general election, and has his/her party controlling both the House and the Senate. It would also require a constitutional amendment, repealing the 16th Amendment that created the income tax, which would mean that the issue would have to go to the states for a lengthy ratification process requiring 2/3's approval, so it's probably not going to occur in my lifetime.


My first exposure to the notion of retail tax vs income tax was in the mid 80's, it's why I voted for Ron Paul in 88. Those two links each represent a starting point, any final iteration would obviously evolve during implementation.

As for your question Burr, I ain't going down that rabbit hole (it would take me hours to answer the question properly) I'm just saying that taxing spending rather than earning would be more easily implemented, would eliminate loopholes, is immensely more easily understood and much more inherently fair. It would apply equally to individuals, corporations (American or foreign), churches and tourists.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:41 am

Anyone who is actually knoweldgabe about the subject and is being intellectually honest about it recognizes that calling the Democrats socialists or even trying to link them to socialis is nothing more than propogandist bullshit.


If you put a capital "S" on Socialism/Socialist, we agree, as I've stated. If you want instead to protest what I actually said rather than what you wanted me to say, ie. the lurch-left-toward-small-"s"-socialist-tendencies, sorry- you guys made your bed, enjoy sleeping in it.

You're gas tax example doesn't wash.


Oh nonsense- of course there are differences, but it illustrates how morally bankrupt the line of reasoning is that leads people to characterize an across-the-board tax cut as merely a "TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY!"

It's politics of envy BS meant to garner votes, not make anything more "fair".

The U.S. may have the most progressive tax plan in the world in terms of tax burden but you also need to look at how the tax money is spent.


Fine- argue for more social programs, or even go full Sanders and argue for taxing "the rich" at 90%, or 100%, or just confiscating all accumulated wealth if that's your thing.

Just quit bullshitting everybody and cut the tired baloney about successful people not paying their "FAIR SHARE". They pay *far* more than that already.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:09 pm

Burrrton... you need to stop trying to project what you heard some democrat say with what I've said. You can't find one instance of me saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" because I've never said it. I'm talking about taxes in the sense of what makes fiscal sense for the country not arguing who should be paying and isn't paying what.

Look if you are wealthy and all you are doing is looking out for yourself I get why your philosophy is what it is. I'm talkin gabout what's best for the country. What it sounds like is you're playing the short game and you just don't want those poor people in your pocket by using entitlement programs and such.

Well s*** has to be paid for. If you don't mind infrastructure, education and scientifice achievement crumbling around you then sure let's go for it... Flat Tax for everyone!!! But you're just throwing out talking points. What does "capital S" even mean. You have clearly invented some definition of what it means to you but why would I stipulate to that definition when I don't even know what Captial "S" Socialism means to you?

The whole problem with the Republican Tax plan IMO is they want to slash taxes and pay for it by slashing social programs like Planned Parenthood. Well if you were running a business interested in long term success youwould never do that. It's completely short term thinking focussed on tomorrow's bottom line instead of long term profitability. Why do corporations provide handsome benefit packages for their non-exempt employees? Paying for that health insurance, vacation, 401K match and profit sharing doesn't help the bottomline. But in the long term it costs less to pay for that stuff and not continually turnover and retrain their staff. Planned Parenthood may cost taxpayers 500 million a year but the number of pregnancies it prevents in unisured citizens alone is massive. Consider... Planned Parenthood provides Birth Control services for 3.6 million people. The average pregnancy today costs 30K in medical expenses. If Planned Parenthood has their funding pulled then hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't get pregnant do. So yeah that 500 million comes off the federal balance sheet but because they don't have insurance that 30,000.00 per pregancy falls on us anyway. Maybe you won't see it on your tax bill but you'll see it on your insurance premiums. So would you rather us have to shoulder 500 million in tax liability to fund Planned Parenthood or would you rather shoulder 1.5 billion in added strain on the health insurance idustry? (And that is an EXTREMELY conservative estimate). If Planned Parenthood prevents just 17,000 pregnancies a year it pays for that funding and prevents added liability on us.

My thought isn't that rich people have a duty to subsidize poor people. My thought is it just makes more financial sense to continue to fund programs like that because whether fair or not it's going to save you more money in the long term.

You keep wanting to argue facts in a vacuum. That's not the way it works. Everything is built on everything else like an elaborate dominoes set up. So you can't base your argument for cutting taxes around the fact that the U.S. has the most progressive tax structure without incorporating WHY other countries tax codes aren't as progressive. I'm not arguing for the kind of social programs Europe has. But that is a big reason why they are able to have a less progressive tax code without constant civil unrest.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby RiverDog » Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:35 pm

kalibane wrote:Yep Riv that's one of the problems with it. How do you deal with the wealth that people have alredy have taxed. I think the consumer tax makes the most sense but there are so many challenges in getting something like that ratified and we can't even get a budget done at the present time. How are we going to overhaul the tax code to that degree?


The answer would be to treat accumulated wealth differently than income earned after the tax was implemented. But I don't know how they could do that without creating mass confusion and opening up a lot of loopholes and potential for abuse. That one problem is what makes the tax a deal breaker for me. Too bad they can't do what they do with farm fuel and dye it red.

Overhauling the tax code would be a piece of cake compared to what it would take to repeal the 16th amendment. 38 states would have to ratify it. It would have to be hugely popular, and there would be plenty of special interests that would line up against it.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:11 pm

You can't find one instance of me saying the rich don't pay their "fair share" because I've never said it.


Look if you are wealthy and all you are doing is looking out for yourself I get why your philosophy is what it is.


Yeah, where ever would I get such an impression?

You keep wanting to argue facts in a vacuum.


Why don't you tell me more about arguing facts in a vacuum, Mr. "You must want infrastructure to crumble if you oppose Yet Another Social Program We Can't Afford".

If Planned Parenthood has their funding pulled then hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't get pregnant do. So yeah that 500 million comes off the federal balance sheet but because they don't have insurance that 30,000.00 per pregancy falls on us anyway. Maybe you won't see it on your tax bill but you'll see it on your insurance premiums. So would you rather us have to shoulder 500 million in tax liability to fund Planned Parenthood or would you rather shoulder 1.5 billion in added strain on the health insurance idustry? (And that is an EXTREMELY conservative estimate). If Planned Parenthood prevents just 17,000 pregnancies a year it pays for that funding and prevents added liability on us.


Your premise is that if PP isn't providing free birth control, nobody is and it won't be available. Why?

[edit- Further, I suspect you know this, but the objection to Federal money going to PP is not fiscal- it's moral, and the objection has merit (which I can admit despite being rather pro-choice-ish as long as it's performed early enough).]

What it sounds like is you're playing the short game and you just don't want those poor people in your pocket by using entitlement programs and such.


And it sounds like you have some really grand plans for everyone else's money.

Nobody's trying to eliminate SS or Medicare/Medicaid, so give it a rest- it's just that some of us took math in college and can see that those programs, as currently configured and distributed, have *ZERO* chance of staying solvent. You won't be able to *begin* to pay for them simply by jacking tax rates on whoever you don't like this year- you *have* to make changes to them and stop demonizing the s*** out of every person that so much as mentions fixing them instead of endlessly expanding them.

You seem to think Republicans don't care about "the poor", but it's Republicans that are trying to keep those programs around.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:48 am

Burrrton... you want me to have said rich people need to pay their fair share so you have projected it on me and choose to believe it because it makes it easier for you to dismiss what I've said. You can try to string together two separate statements and infer some kind of hidden meaning all you want. I still haven't said a thing about the "fair share" crap you are obsessed with painting people with. All I've said is your flat tax idea is bullshit (which it is, because it's doesn't work) and talked about what people want to cut to pay for it.

Why don't you tell me more about arguing facts in a vacuum, Mr. "You must want infrastructure to crumble if you oppose Yet Another Social Program We Can't Afford".


Again.. no where did I say that you want infrastructure to crumble. I'm talking about financial reality and I don't think a lot of republicans understand the long term financial impact of cutting some of the programs they'd like to cut. All they see is what the government is outlaying in the budget and have no interest in even doing the research to see what the programs save on the back end.

Your premise is that if PP isn't providing free birth control, nobody is and it won't be available. Why?

[edit- Further, I suspect you know this, but the objection to Federal money going to PP is not fiscal- it's moral, and the objection has merit (which I can admit despite being rather pro-choice-ish as long as it's performed early enough).]


It won't prevent all 3.6 million people from getting birth control but it will prevent a lot of people from getting it. The idea that there is simply another clinic next door that people can go to for the same services at the same cost is again... bullshit. Free clinics are few and far between and do not have the funding or capacity to absorb the PP clientele. Most of the women I went to college with relied on planned parenthood for gynecological services until they had health insurance of their own. And those are the people with actual resources.

You really have just eaten up all the talking points haven't you? Also the moral argument against planned parenthood is even flimsier than the fiscal. If you're one of those sting video truthers I don't even know what to say.

Nobody's trying to eliminate SS or Medicare/Medicaid, so give it a rest- it's just that some of us took math in college and can see that those programs, as currently configured and distributed, have *ZERO* chance of staying solvent. You won't be able to *begin* to pay for them simply by jacking tax rates on whoever you don't like this year- you *have* to make changes to them and stop demonizing the s*** out of every person that so much as mentions fixing them instead of endlessly expanding them.


Once again you are just projecting what you want to believe. Do you have any ideas on what I've actually said or are you just going to continue to take one thing I say and infer from that that I also advocate for a COMPLETELY different thing. You ASSUME I want to jack up taxes. Never said it. You ASSUME I am of the "fair share" school of thought. Never said it. You Assume I'm in a certain tax bracket looking to spend other people's money and not talking about how I want my money spent. All you do is ASSUME.

The only tax plan I have advocated for in this entire discussion is a consumption tax. Something you decided to avoid talking about entirely but you have just decided that I'm a stereotypical tax and spend liberal. So while you're being glib and talking about who took math in college... if you are really the math major you claim you are, you wouldn't be talking about a flat tax because the math doesn't work. If you were really so interested in the "math" you'd also be talking about no-bid contracts for defense contractors that are overcharging the government for their services. Or the massive loopholes that allow some of the most profitable companies like Exxon pay no taxes thus shifting the tax burden to private individuals like us. Isn't that your money being spent poorly? Is it a coincidence that these aren't one of the conservative talking points?

You are more interested me in painting me with your liberal stereotype brush than you are actually looking at the issues. No where did I say that I want to raise taxes, no where did I say that no social programs can be cut. No where did I say that Medicare/Medicade or Social Security don't need to be addressed. I just said cutting taxes more isn't going to solve the problem, and it won't. Taxes are at an all time low and the deficit is only getting worse. You have yet to explain why cutting taxes more is the answer... all you've done is QQ about "fair share", which no one was talking about EXCEPT you.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:46 am

Burrrton... you want me to have said rich people need to pay their fair share so you have projected it on me and choose to believe it because it makes it easier for you to dismiss what I've said.


No, Kal- I'm pointing out that your strong objection to me (mistakenly) thinking you used the term "fair share" seems bizarre given your ridiculous implications and accusations.

Again, you made your bed there, chief. I won't attribute that phrase directly to you, but if it sums up your attitudes pretty tidily...

It won't prevent all 3.6 million people from getting birth control but it will prevent a lot of people from getting it.


It would do no such thing, for heaven's sake. Dems could make the dmn pill OTC tomorrow (even subsidize the $10-20/mo it costs for lowest income, probably).

You really have just eaten up all the talking points haven't you?


Talking points machine Kalibane thinks I've eaten up all the talking points. Neat.

Also the moral argument against planned parenthood is even flimsier than the fiscal. If you're one of those sting video truthers I don't even know what to say.


*sigh* Jeezus, Kal- you really have no idea what you're arguing about.

The moral objection to PP existed LONG before those videos- it is that they perform a metric shit-ton of *abortions*, and I hate to break it to you, but there are real and valid concerns about that (more or fewer depending on when the abortion is performed).

There is no reasonable argument they should be getting half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. Sorry. If all you who think PP is such a necessity put your money where your mouths are (novel concept, I know) and sent them your *own* money, they'd be swimming in cash.

But instead you have some Daddy complex about the Federal government and think they should be the only source of funding for whatever has you excited today.

It's truly odd.

Something you decided to avoid talking about entirely but you have just decided that I'm a stereotypical tax and spend liberal.


LOL. Yeah, where ever would I get such an impression?

"I'm NOT a tax-and-spend liberal, damnit- I just want you to pay a lot of tax so I can spend it on all these great programs I have in mind!"

[edit]

No where did I say that I want to raise taxes


This is a good example why it's pointless to argue with you. You say "I NEVER SAID I WANT TAXES TO GO UP" right after you insultingly complain that I'm just a rich guy who wants to keep the "poor's" hands off my money, that taxes are SOOOOO low, etc ad nauseum.

I'm sure you don't mean to contradict yourself, but it's tiring.

I'm out.
Last edited by burrrton on Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:38 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby burrrton » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:09 am

Our compromise, would say that no income taxes would be owed on the first $40,000 of income for all earners.


Do you know of any 'flat tax' proposal that *doesn't* contain such an exemption, ObS?

I'm sure I haven't read *every* proposal, but I don't.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby RiverDog » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:10 am

Our (ObS's) compromise, would say that no income taxes would be owed on the first $40,000 of income for all earners.

Do you know of any 'flat tax' (burrton's) proposal that *doesn't* contain such an exemption, ObS?

I haven't looked at it closely for awhile, but one of the things in the "Fair Tax", or national retail sales tax, proposal is that to every eligible man, woman, and child they cut a check each month that covers the cost of basic living expenses, such as food and OTC medicine. That's their way of helping the poor.

One of the things that attracts me to the fair tax is it's simplicity and fairness. Every one pays at least some tax. If you're poor and you don't have money, you don't buy anything and you don't pay the tax. If you're an illegal alien and you buy something in the United States, guess what? You just became a taxpayer, thank you very much.

Of the flat tax and progressive taxes, which one does the illegal alien, the tourist, the company executive from Europe on business, the hockey team from Canada, or any other temporary visitors pay the federal government a tax?

And which proposal completely eliminates the IRS?

If there was a way to get around two things, ie the tax on accumulated wealth and the impact implementing the tax would cause, the only way to go IMO is a national retail sales tax that is revenue neutral. One thing is for sure: There would be no sneaking in tax increases. If they raised the tax from 23% to 25%, every man, woman, and child would see it immediately.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby savvyman » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:16 pm

burrrton wrote:Anyone who is actually knoweldgabe about the subject and is being intellectually honest about it recognizes that calling the Democrats socialists or even trying to link them to socialis is nothing more than propogandist bullshit.

If you put a capital "S" on Socialism/Socialist, we agree, as I've stated. If you want instead to protest what I actually said rather than what you wanted me to say, ie. the lurch-left-toward-small-"s"-socialist-tendencies, sorry- you guys made your bed, enjoy sleeping in it.

You're gas tax example doesn't wash.

Oh nonsense- of course there are differences, but it illustrates how morally bankrupt the line of reasoning is that leads people to characterize an across-the-board tax cut as merely a "TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY!"

It's politics of envy BS meant to garner votes, not make anything more "fair".

The U.S. may have the most progressive tax plan in the world in terms of tax burden but you also need to look at how the tax money is spent.

Fine- argue for more social programs, or even go full Sanders and argue for taxing "the rich" at 90%, or 100%, or just confiscating all accumulated wealth if that's your thing.

Just quit bullshitting everybody and cut the tired baloney about successful people not paying their "FAIR SHARE". They pay *far* more than that already.




Gee Burton........ I wonder why the wealthy are paying more in taxes than the "Un-Sucessful"...... here is a clue for you Sherlock


Image



You are right we do have Socialism in the USA .... We have had Socialism for the Top 5% for the past 30 Years as every single economic distribution of wealth chart clearly shows.


Image
User avatar
savvyman
Legacy
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:17 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby kalibane » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:47 am

LOL... No Burrrton. This entire discussion for me is about what does and doesn't make financial sense in terms of the policies that YOU advocate. Like the infrastructure debate we had, I'm just arguing to argue against what doesn't make sense, and has little to do with my personal politics. I like things to make sense and YOU MAKE NO SENSE from a fiscal standpoint. So when you make statements like this:

No, Kal- I'm pointing out that your strong objection to me (mistakenly) thinking you used the term "fair share" seems bizarre given your ridiculous implications and accusations.

Again, you made your bed there, chief. I won't attribute that phrase directly to you, but if it sums up your attitudes pretty tidily...


It's laughable. I'm trying to figure out what your motivation is for continuing to lower taxes within the current tax code or your flat tax which are the only two ideas you've offered. You have yet to offer one reason why this is a "good" idea. all you've done is yammer on about "fair share". So I'll ask you again... why is this a good idea for the country? Or is it, like I asked, just a good idea for you personally? I'd I'll accept that explanation or another one but all you've done to "defend" your position is accuse me (and other people) of being "fair share" democrats who want to raise taxes.

It would do no such thing, for heaven's sake. Dems could make the dmn pill OTC tomorrow (even subsidize the $10-20/mo it costs for lowest income, probably).


Um... no. The FDA decides what is and isn't over the counter. Not politicians.

You don't understand birth control at all do you? Birth Control is by prescription for a reason. First with regards to "the pill". There are several types with different hormone balances and different side effects that have different efficacy depending on the patient. You need a doctor consulting with the patient to figure out the best pill for each patient and then make adjustments after the fact if necessary, which requires further consultation. Birth Control is not one size fits all. For some women hormonal birth control leads to endometriosis and ovarian cysts that end up requiring surgery or can threaten longterm fertility or develop into Cancer. So aside from "the pill". There are things like rod implants, IUD, Hormonal IUD, Nuva Ring, Depo Shot, Birth Control patch. Tell me how does one get an "over the counter" IUD or Depo Shot?

The Pill costs $50.00 a month so that's how much you'd be subsidizing for low income recipients. I'll let you do the math since you're the math wiz and you can see how few people that would cover for the same $500 million in taxpayer subsidy. Meanwhile by making birth control over the counter you're just creating more health issues, not solving them, much less making them more affordable for people like us who are subsidizing them. And that is just birth control, putting aside the other gynecological services that PP provides that we're going to end up having to shoulder through extra Medicaid costs and jacked up insurance premiums. This is about dollars and cents plain and simple. If planned parenthood gets the job done cheaper for more people you're going to have to explain better why there "no reason" for PP to get funding.

And this is the essence of what I'm talking about, you are looking at talking points. You look at the $500 million on the federal balance sheet and arbitrarily think "that's a big number, I don't want to subsidize such a big number". You have done ZERO research as to what the actual cost is to taxpayers to go with another alternative.

If you really want to lower the amount of money that is being taken from you to subsidize other people then you should be in favor of funding planned parenthood because that is the lesser evil, as of today, unless you have another idea that you haven't shared (but considering your lack of knowledge regarding prescription birth control, I'm going to say you don't really have any kind of fully formed ideas on the issue).

This is a good example why it's pointless to argue with you. You say "I NEVER SAID I WANT TAXES TO GO UP" right after you insultingly complain that I'm just a rich guy who wants to keep the "poor's" hands off my money, that taxes are SOOOOO low, etc ad nauseum.


No actually this is just you avoiding the subject again by slinging mud. The fact that I asked if your motivation to lower taxes has absolutely ZERO correlation to MY personal tax policy. It's just something you made up in your head. All you have to do is explain why lowering taxes is a good idea to you, but no you'd rather slap labels on people with no factual basis. I don't particularly care if you just want lower income people out of your pockets and that's your only motivation. I wasn't complaining. That is a real reason for a lot of people. You're the one who takes it as an insult. I totally understand that POV... or If you believe in supply side economics, it makes sense for you to feel that way. I just want to know if that's the POV you're coming from so I can make sense of why you want to lower taxes or institute a flat tax? And if that's not it then actually give another reason.

The funny thing is you're seeing so much red that you haven't even realized that a consumption tax which is one of the few things I've outright stated should be explored, would end up shifting more of the tax burden to the lower tax brackets because that's where most consumption occurs. But nah... because I call you out for not having an actual explanation, it means I want to jack up taxes on the wealthy. Wah wah wah

So sorry Burrrton. I didn't contradict myself. What brought me into this conversation in the first place was your ridiculous assertion that JFK wouldn't be welcome in the Democratic Party today based on cutting the tax rate from WWII levels, and the fact that you just haven't offered an actual rational argument to support any of your talking points. If you're going to say things should be a certain way, you should have a reason. So far all you've shown is that you have a list of talking points that you can speak around (The JFK thing is a classic fabricated conservative talking point, it's what gave you away, just like you can spot a Dem stuck on talking points a mile away when they say "Reagan raised taxes"). I'm not new at this kid. You're going to have to come better than the typical fox news/msnbc playbook that were created so lazy people could talk about politics without actually knowing about them. And it's not that I think you're dumb, but for whatever reason you don't feel like you need to actually have a substantive reasoning to explain your POV. And I'm going to attack that whether we're talking about the Seahawks or Politics.

For me it's the same deal as when we were talking about high speed rail, something fun to debate back and forth. I don't need to believe in something to argue for it. And I don't need to be against something to argue against it. I just like to debate. But then you were actually presenting an argument instead of just yelling "fair share".

If you wanna be out ... be out. If you need to rationalize your inability to talk with me by calling me a dirty liberal, do you bruh. But realize, that's you just making crap up because it suits your preferred view of me based on the fact that I am debating with your position.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby EmeraldBullet » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:44 am

Let me just put it this way...I wouldn't let her watch my kids.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby EmeraldBullet » Sat Oct 31, 2015 1:01 am

Old but Slow wrote:Would you let Huckabee?


No. I would let Donald watch them if he agreed to take them up in one of his helicopters though.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby c_hawkbob » Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:57 am

I think the idea of any politician as a babysitter is pretty frightening.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby Hawktown » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:51 am

c_hawkbob wrote:I think the idea of any politician as a babysitter is pretty frightening.


Very true. This is why I feel they need to downsize the GOV to a much more manageable size. They All feel they are our babysitters. We don't need that.
Hawktown
Legacy
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Location: Renton, WA 98058

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby savvyman » Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:44 pm

burrrton wrote:Our tax system is already the most progressive in the industrialized world ("THE RICH" support WAY more of our system than their income should indicate).

Endlessly whining for us to shift more and more of the tax burden upward is counter-productive. Worse, though, it's adolescent 'politics of envy' claptrap. "Because he can!" is not a reasonable answer to "Why should he pay more?"



Had another 2 extra minutes to address your puppeteer comments from the ruling elite.

Don't let facts such as these get in the way of your stupid beliefs that you constantly try to "educate the masses about......"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0119/Unlocking-the-mystery-of-Romney-s-15-percent-tax-rate.-Yes-it-s-legal



>>>>>>>It may sound illegal; it may sound like a tax dodge. But Mitt Romney’s declared tax rate of about 15 percent, well below that of most Americans, is perfectly legal and accepted by the Internal Revenue Service...........Isn’t it unfair for plumbers and policemen to pay a higher tax rate than investors such as Romney?

Fleischer says the law was originally enacted in 1954 to try to be flexible with small businesses. Now, he says, “it’s used by billionaire investment partners. That’s not what Congress had in mind.”

One of the critics of the law is Warren Buffet, the Omaha-based investor, who has said he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary since he receives carried interest.

However, opponents of making changes say Mr. Buffet should just write a check if he wants to pay higher taxes.

Fleischer says it strikes him as important to change the law, which he says is utilized by sophisticated, knowledgeable people who can afford expensive lawyers. “The rest of us don’t get this kind of treatment,” he says.<<<<<<<<<<<<
User avatar
savvyman
Legacy
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:17 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby EmeraldBullet » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:10 pm

None of these candidates will actually change the tax law. The president doesn't have the authority, it would take an act of congress as well. Never gonna happen. Politicians are too busy using the power of their positions to line their own pockets to even give a rats @$$ about us common folk.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby RiverDog » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:52 am

EmeraldBullet wrote:None of these candidates will actually change the tax law. The president doesn't have the authority, it would take an act of congress as well. Never gonna happen. Politicians are too busy using the power of their positions to line their own pockets to even give a rats @$$ about us common folk.


That's true.

But Congress will act under certain conditions, one of which includes the leadership of the POTUS. We can get major changes to our tax code, but it's going to require that the POTUS make it a campaign issue and has an operating majority in Congress. He has the bully pulpit and can influence the constituents of those dead beat congressmen and can bring pressure on them to act. That's how Roosevelt got his New Deal through, how Johnson got his Great Society legislation through, how Reagan and Bush got their tax cuts, and how Obama got ObamaCare.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby EmeraldBullet » Sun Nov 01, 2015 12:13 pm

I always thought a clever campaign strategy would be for someone to change their name to "none of these options." They would get sooo many votes they probably would win.
User avatar
EmeraldBullet
Legacy
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:55 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton

Postby savvyman » Sun Jan 24, 2016 3:32 pm

So who owns Hilary? The upper .01% or what is also known as "The Ruling Class".


[http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/Hillary%20Clinton%20Speeches%202013-2015_1.jpg


The Wall Street and Big Bank Candidate - She could give a Sh@t about you, me, your family, your co-workers, your friends.... unless you are running with people with a net worth of over a half billion.


https://vimeo.com/152786370
User avatar
savvyman
Legacy
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests