Can Hillary Win?

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by brianhos

After Obamas sock it to the middle class social security tax plan, I could never vote for him.

How exactly does Obama sock it to the middle class with his social security plan? He proposes raising the cap above $97,500. How does that "sock it to the middle class"?

[herbiedoobie]

Originally Posted by Stormin

You can't be serious. A GWB staffer put up the banner stating "Mission Accomplished". And GWB gave every insinuation that the whole war was over. It was a photo op that has backfired. This ticks me off too. If the freaking Mission is Accomplished it is over. Done. Bring the troops home. The spin "end of major combat action" came out long after the speech.

By the way, whatever happened to the mantra "This war will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues." Or was GWB misquoted again. From the ever changing reasons for going to war, to the ever changing reasons for our present mission there. This Foreign Policy has been a total disaster. We have been lied to, misled, and manipulated. That is why we have no credibility with the rest of the world. You really need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid HerbieDoobie.

Hmmm. So I guess some "Evil GWB Staffer"(tm) must've put the Exact Same Banner up for my unit as it came home in 2004, too. Gadzooks, those Vast Right Wing Conspiracies are powerful.

And I happened to have listened to the speech. I believe he used the phrase himself. And I believe you are a "bit" confused.

No, I don't think our foreign policy has been entirely successful, vis-a-vis Iraq, (understatement of the year) and Yes, we actually went to war in Iraq for a large variety of reasons, none of which have "changed".

Now, certain people in the media have changed the "reasons" we went to Iraq. The central reason that I can recall was to get rid of Saddaam and create a free and stable Iraq that could be a long-term ally in order to leverage other nations in the regions to do the same. (not that I believe in that is possible, but that "reason" hasn't changed much)

Of course, I don't listen to media crap all that much.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by Cyclonepride

It would rally assloads of democrat support, but it would rally anyone center and right against it.

I'm still having difficulty grasping the concept that a Hillary/Obama ticket is doomed. Would you recommend that Hillary seek a Republican V.P. to "broaden" the appeal of the ticket?

Actually I believe that Hillary has the best chance of any candidate to become the next president. My beliefs are based on polls that clearly show that she is the front runner. Hillary's unfavorable numbers are frequently mentioned as a reason that she won't win the general election. However, I suspect high unfavorables willl be the likely fate for both party nominees. Hillary already has high unfavorables because she has been in the political limelight for so long. As candidates become the likely party nominee their unfavorables will rise to match Hillary's unfavorables. Its the nature of today's polarized environment.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by Stormin

How exactly does Obama sock it to the middle class with his social security plan? He proposes raising the cap above $97,500. How does that "sock it to the middle class"?

What is wrong with Obama's social security plan is that he intends to turn it into another income redistribution program (it will increase taxes for wealthier Americans but doesn't pay increased benefits for wealthier Americans). I don't support turning social security into another income redistribution program.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

What is wrong with Obama's social security plan is that he intends to turn it into another income redistribution program (it will increase taxes for wealthier Americans but doesn't pay increased benefits for wealthier Americans). I don't support turning social security into another income redistribution program.

At the present time, Social Security fund surpluses are being used to fund our Federal Government. All of this talk of privatization is actually a scheme for the Federal Government to avoid repayment when they have to start paying back the Social Security Program in 2017 of the funds that have been borrowed. It has basically been used as a "Flat Tax" with a Cap at the top.

I don't see how raising the Cap on Social Security wages "socks it to the middle class". It looks like it mainly affects the wealthiest amongst us.

And if we want to discuss income redistribution, what exactly are the subsidies given to Big Business, Oil, etc. ?? And what are your feelings toward "economic development" where rich Corporations like Wal-Mart receive tax abatements and government grants. Not exactly a Free Market is it?

[iceclone]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

My last word on the presidential election of 2000. I promise.

Since I don't want you to go back on your promise, I'll only respond abstractly, without reference to specific events that should never be spoke of again

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

I agree completely that the US Supreme Court should not have intervened. (If you are interested, for an in depth account and analysis on the Supreme Court's motives and machinations for their intervention in the 2000 presidential election, read Part II, Chapters 11, 12, and 13 of Jeffrey Toobin's recent book The Nine.)

Thanks for the recommendation.

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

Lets assume for the moment that it is appropriate to describe Al Gore as ungracious for exercising his legal right to challenge a very close and a disputed (systemic) vote in a state where the election process is under the jurisdiction of his opponent's brother. Given that assumption, what words would you use to describe GWB in the exercise of his legal right to appeal the adverse (to him) decision of the Florida Supreme Court?

My comment came out as more specific than I intended. I am troubled by what appears to be an increasing trend for those on the loosing end to challenge election results. In general I think this is misguided, and not in the best interest of the country.

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

Finally, viewing in hindsight the deeds of the GWB administration to date, to say that ceding defeat (to GWB) was(is) "for the good of the country" is the misnomer of the day.

As a general principle, I’m sticking to the view I held at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. I do agree that hindsight makes me want to make an exception to the principle.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by Stormin

At the present time, Social Security fund surpluses are being used to fund our Federal Government. All of this talk of privatization is actually a scheme for the Federal Government to avoid repayment when they have to start paying back the Social Security Program in 2017 of the funds that have been borrowed. It has basically been used as a "Flat Tax" with a Cap at the top.

I don't see how raising the Cap on Social Security wages "socks it to the middle class". It looks like it mainly affects the wealthiest amongst us.

And if we want to discuss income redistribution, what exactly are the subsidies given to Big Business, Oil, etc. ?? And what are your feelings toward "economic development" where rich Corporations like Wal-Mart receive tax abatements and government grants. Not exactly a Free Market is it?

I am for economic development. I prefer it over an economic collapse.

There are numerous government grants, tax breaks and government subsidies so it is difficult to provide a blanket answer to your question. I recall that government farm subsidies were discussed in a previous thread.

Tax breaks reduce a corporations income tax. I favor eliminating corporate income taxes.

Many of the government subsidies and grants are issued through "earmarks." I am a critic of "earmarks." I believe that most earmarks are wasteful whether they go to corporations or other sources.

[brianhos]

Originally Posted by Stormin

How exactly does Obama sock it to the middle class with his social security plan? He proposes raising the cap above $97,500. How does that "sock it to the middle class"?

Exactly, taking away social security freedom day is a big deal. The middle class is not going to get any benefit from this ponzi scheme, yet now they want us to pay for even more of it. It does not matter to the people making $500k+ a year, but it sure as hell does matter to the people making $100k. And anymore $100k is middle class.

[brianhos]

Originally Posted by Stormin

And if we want to discuss income redistribution, what exactly are the subsidies given to Big Business, Oil, etc. ?? And what are your feelings toward "economic development" where rich Corporations like Wal-Mart receive tax abatements and government grants. Not exactly a Free Market is it?

So lets get rid of those subsidies, as well as farm subsidies while we are at it. We do NOT need to give the government more money, we need to give them much much less money so they have less power.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

I am for economic development. I prefer it over an economic collapse.

There are numerous government grants, tax breaks and government subsidies so it is difficult to provide a blanket answer to your question. I recall that government farm subsidies were discussed in a previous thread.

Tax breaks reduce a corporations income tax. I favor eliminating corporate income taxes.

Many of the government subsidies and grants are issued through "earmarks." I am a critic of "earmarks." I believe that most earmarks are wasteful whether they go to corporations or other sources.

So wealth redistribution is okay if it goes to corporations from the taxpayers but corporations should be exempt from taxation?

My opinion is that economic development has resulted in an inefficient allocation of resources. Companies no longer locate according to what the best natural attributes are for their particular industry. Instead they locate according to where they can get the best deal. When the goodies expire, they go to the next location to where they get the best deal. And we do this all in the interest of "creating jobs". But what about the companies who have been stable and stay in a particular location. Usually they get nothing. Not exactly a fair shake if you ask me. That is my biggest gripe about economic development. Some companies continually prostitute themselves for taxpayer money. While the stable companies that stay put get sc**wed. It has gottten to the point that each and every community is falling over themselves with giveaways to large corporations. I can see economic development and loans for companies to get started, but why all the money to companies like Wal-Mart?

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by brianhos

Exactly, taking away social security freedom day is a big deal. The middle class is not going to get any benefit from this ponzi scheme, yet now they want us to pay for even more of it. It does not matter to the people making $500k+ a year, but it sure as hell does matter to the people making $100k. And anymore $100k is middle class.

You will hardly pay any more additional Social Security tax if you are making $100k per year. That is about what the cap is at now.

[bawbie]

Originally Posted by brianhos

Exactly, taking away social security freedom day is a big deal. The middle class is not going to get any benefit from this ponzi scheme, yet now they want us to pay for even more of it. It does not matter to the people making $500k+ a year, but it sure as hell does matter to the people making $100k. And anymore $100k is middle class.

The cutoff next year is $105k. So how does it matter to anyone making $100k? Also, even if the cutoff were still at $97k, then someone making $100k is would pay payroll tax on an extra $3k, I don't think that is going to bankrupt anyone.

Also, I don't know what your definition of "middle class" is, but only 6% of people in this country make >$100k, so I fail to see how any definition of "middle class" includes the top 6% of earners.

[alaskaguy]

Stormin I believe you took my comments out of context. When I stated that I favor "economic development" I was stating exactly that, nothing more and nothing less. I was not endorsing government grants or subsidies.

Re-reading your post, it seems as if you are using economic development to refer to property tax abatements?

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by bawbie

The cutoff next year is $105k. So how does it matter to anyone making $100k? Also, even if the cutoff were still at $97k, then someone making $100k is would pay payroll tax on an extra $3k, I don't think that is going to bankrupt anyone.

Also, I don't know what your definition of "middle class" is, but only 6% of people in this country make >$100k, so I fail to see how any definition of "middle class" includes the top 6% of earners.

It matters to me. I would prefer that social security resemble an insurance program rather than an income redistribution program.

[alaskaguy]

Perhaps we should refer to Senator Clinton and her opin on Obama's proposed social security fix.

Clinton's response is "that lifting the payroll tax would mean a trillion-dollar tax increase", adding that she did not want to "fix the problems of Social Security on the backs of middle-class families and seniors."