Can Hillary Win?

[bawbie]

Originally Posted by 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."

Her calling it a "trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class" is one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama in the caucuses. More because of what it says about her campaign style and rhetoric (straight out of Rove's mouth) than this specific policy, but she is dead wrong. Obama's proposal is in no way a "trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class".

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by 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?

Actually I was referring to specific grants and in some cases where local communities have invested in significant infrastructure expenditures to accomodate local industry with assurances that the industry might remain. More specifically, I refer to the City of Albert Lea, MN and their efforts to retain a packing plant called Seaboard Foods. Time wrote a good article. I will link it for you. All of these things were done in the name of economic development. For the economic good of the community. For future growth. A pretty tragic story in reality.

The Empire Of The Pigs - TIME

The article is called "The Empire of the Pigs". Very good read.

[alaskaguy]

Why should the social security program have a class subtext (requiring the wealthy/rich to disproportinately fund social security)?

Those that believe the government should be redistributing income should fight that argument over income tax policy and leave social security alone.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Why should the social security program have a class subtext (requiring the wealthy/rich to disproportinately fund social security)?

Those that believe the government should be redistributing income should fight that argument over income tax policy and leave social security alone.

I agree. Leave Social Security alone. Don't attempt to privatize it. The cap has been raised in the past. So that would not go against previous policy. Wealthy/rich only fund Social Security up to the taxable cap. No more, no less. They also receive higher compensation than those paying in at the lower contribution levels. The means testing that occurs concerning the taxation of a portion of Social Security benefits is a Federal Revenue issue and has nothing to do with the Social Security Tax or benefits.

[bawbie]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Why should the social security program have a class subtext (requiring the wealthy/rich to disproportinately fund social security)?

Those that believe the government should be redistributing income should fight that argument over income tax policy and leave social security alone.

I'm confused...are you arguing for leaving SS the way it is today (potentially running out of money in several decades) or changing it so everyone pays the same, because the way it is structured right now you pay in more the more money you make up to a certain level.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by bawbie

I'm confused...are you arguing for leaving SS the way it is today (potentially running out of money in several decades) or changing it so everyone pays the same, because the way it is structured right now you pay in more the more money you make up to a certain level.

The way it works now is that everyone pays the same percentage tax up to the cap on Social Security. The benefits are paid according to what you pay in. But there is a small progressive bias in the returns for the contributions. i.e. Lower contributors receive a slightly higher rate of return than those at the top contribution level. That is why many refer to it as "wealth redistribution". I consider it to be a case of "My mouth is full, and I am blessed. Why b*tch about it?" Most recipients at the lower benefit level have a very high probability of not having additional retirement funds or income. While those at the upper benefit level tend to have substantial additional retirement funds and additional income.

Social Security is actually an insurance program with a retirement benefit. Benefits for widows, orphans, the disabled and the aged.

I don't know why everyone is so concerned about Social Security. The real train wreck is our Federal Government and National Debt and Deficit. That train wreck will occur in 2017. And yet you hear nothing.

[brianhos]

Originally Posted by bawbie

Her calling it a "trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class" is one of the reasons I'm supporting Obama in the caucuses. More because of what it says about her campaign style and rhetoric (straight out of Rove's mouth) than this specific policy, but she is dead wrong. Obama's proposal is in no way a "trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class".

Not a tax on the middle class? It is a 6% tax increase on every dollar you make over $95k. Sounds like a hefty tax increase to me.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by bawbie

I'm confused...are you arguing for leaving SS the way it is today (potentially running out of money in several decades) or changing it so everyone pays the same, because the way it is structured right now you pay in more the more money you make up to a certain level.

No, I'm not arguing to leave SS the way it is.

If it were up to me my solution would be to phase out the SS program. However, I realize that politically that my solution is a no-go. My second choice would be to privatize social security to the greatest extent possible, but so far that doesn't seem to be going anywhere either.

Employers withhold one-half of the SS tax which happens to be 6.2% of an employees wages. Employers also pay a matching SS tax. The tax is capped based on a $97,500 annual income.

For the sake of simplicity, SS retirement benefits are based on one's social security earnings (this is an oversimplification since the number of "credits" is another factor that determines the SS retirement benefit amount).

Obama proposes to raise the wage cap. However, those impacted by Obama's measure would not recieve an increased retirement benefit. Under the current system the more you pay into SS the greater your retirement benefit amount. However Obama's proposal deviates from that principal since those impacted by raising the cap do not recieve an increased retirement benefit. Therefore, Obama's proposal is another scheme for the government to redistribute income from higher income to lower income Americans.

Given my distaste for the SS program, and assuming that the program can't be killed or privatized, I would endorse decreasing future SS benefit amounts. Increasing the SS payroll tax would be another step down the ladder as a choice, and changing SS into an income redistribution scheme (the Obama option) is even further down the ladder.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by brianhos

Not a tax on the middle class? It is a 6% tax increase on every dollar you make over $95k. Sounds like a hefty tax increase to me.

The tax burden is double the 6.2% withholding rate since employers must match the employee contribution.

[Stormin]

Originally Posted by brianhos

Not a tax on the middle class? It is a 6% tax increase on every dollar you make over $95k. Sounds like a hefty tax increase to me.

About 10% of Americans make over $100k per year. Explain to me how the top 10% of wage earners constitutes the middle.

So it would be a tax increase for those with earned wages over $100k. Unearned income or passive income (interest, dividends, rent, etc.) is not subject to Social Security tax.

[Johnny Tremain]

Originally Posted by brianhos

Never underestimate the stupidty of large groups of people.

Being a Hillaryhater, brianhos, illustrates the very aptness of that statement.

He also illustrate a basic truth about elections and candidates. People usually say that they vote for a candidate based on their evaluation of their ability, experience, integrity, character, values, and so forth. Maybe yes, but not really. Most people will not vote for a candidate they do not like regardless of how well qualified they are for the office they seek. Furthermore, in my opinion, the majority of our electorate will quietly vote their prejudices.

In this presidential election, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle Clinton has to leap is that she is a woman.
The biggest hurdle Obama must leap is that he is black. (I might qualify that and say that the biggest hurdle is that he is not the "right black". In 2000, Colin Powell might have been the "right" black.)
The biggest hurdle Romney has to hurdle is that he is a Mormon.

Personal attributes contribute to whether we like or dislike a candidate, that is, looks, personality and so forth, however, in the case of Clinton and Obama, their candidacy very much depends on whether America's electorate is ready for a woman or a black to be our next President.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

Being a Hillaryhater, brianhos, illustrates the very aptness of that statement.

In this presidential election, in my opinion, the biggest hurdle Clinton has to leap is that she is a woman.

Personal attributes contribute to whether we like or dislike a candidate, that is, looks, personality and so forth, however, in the case of Clinton and Obama, their candidacy very much depends on whether America's electorate is ready for a woman or a black to be our next President.

Personally I don't believe that Hillary's gender is much of an impediment. It may even be an advantage. The number of Americans who have no reservations about voting for a female presidential candidate is 88 percent according to to a February USA Today/Gallup poll:

Source:
Government/Politics

And support for Hillary among women is quite strong. While a Gallup analysis of polling data between 2005 and 2007 found that men were almost evenly divided in their opinion of Hillary—with 49 percent rating her unfavorably and 47 percent rating her favorably—women were far more positive about her: 59 percent rated Hillary favorably and only 36 percent unfavorably.

Source:
Hillary Clinton’s Gender Gap » Outside The Beltway | OTB

The gender gap could be decisive for Hillary. It works to Hillary's advantage since women outnumber men in both the overall population and the electorate.

Now, that I have opined that Hillary's gender is NOT a big hurdle, allow me to offer what is behind the anti-Hillary sentiment. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll explored in detail the views of Americans who can be considered Clinton detractors.

Link:
What Is Behind Anti-Hillary Sentiment?

The major reasons that Hillary's detractors listed for not voting for her fall into one of three broad categories of responses -- basic dislike of her or her husband (35%), policy disagreements (39%), and character concerns (34%). Reservations about a women being a President is much much further down the list.

[Incyte]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

Personal attributes contribute to whether we like or dislike a candidate, that is, looks, personality and so forth, however, in the case of Clinton and Obama, their candidacy very much depends on whether America's electorate is ready for a woman or a black to be our next President.

What decade do you live in? Try pulling yourself out of 1960.

[alaskaguy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Tremain

Furthermore, in my opinion, the majority of our electorate will quietly vote their prejudices.

People do vote their prejudices. But what are the prejudices that they are likely to act on?

Link:
Gallup Poll Diversity » Outside The Beltway | OTB

If the polling results are accurate, John McCain needs to be worrying about prejudice due to his age. In addition, Rudy and Romney confront far more prejudice due to multiple divorces and religion (Mormon) than either Hillary or Obama confront from their gender or race.

[jdoggivjc]

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Let's compare

Obama gets Oprah
Hillary has Barbara Steisand
Huckabee gets Chuck Norris
Romney gets Hulk Hogan
Fred Thompson gets Ted Nugent
Giulinni has Dennis Miller.
Kucinich has Sean Penn
Edwards has Jackson Browne
Ron Paul has John Mayer

Any others?

All the more reason to vote for Huckabee - Chuck Norris could take out the rest of the candidates and their supporters with one swift roundhouse kick!