So I finally looked at hillaryclinton.com

[blackangst1]

I was watching her stump speech in TX, listening to her say things like "for those collage graduates who decide to work in the public sector, like teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters, and nurses, I will waive your college loan"...or this: "It's not fair for Wall Street money managers who make $50 million dollars a year pays less of a percentage of their income than a family that earns $50,000". Uh. What planet is she on? At $50k the income tax is about 14%. LOL A $50 million income pays less? hahahah not in THIS country. The only thing I was thinking hearing her speech is all the government programs and handouts she wants, so I went to her website. What a treasure chest of give aways!

Creating a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to jumpstart research and development of alternative energies

Appoint a trade enforcement officer within the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and double the size of USTR?s enforcement unit

The Save Our Homes program would temporarily use Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the state housing finance agencies to help reduce foreclosures. The program would be in effect for 2 years. First, Hillary will temporarily increase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?s portfolio caps by 5% to give the companies approximately $70 billion in incremental mortgage purchasing capacity

Lowering the cost of college through a $3,500 tuition tax credit, enough to cover more than 50% of the cost of tuition at the average public institution for many families.

Increase the Maximum Pell Grant

Hillary has proposed legislation to create The United States Public Service Academy

Offer matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1000 to help middle class and working families save. Her American Retirement Accounts Plan will give that chance to the tens of millions of Americans who are currently falling through the cracks while reducing wealth inequality, increasing national savings, and encouraging economic growth. Under the plan, working and middle class families who currently have the hardest time saving will get generous matching tax cuts as an incentive to save

Establish a national broadband strategy called Connect America

Double the budget for basic and applied research at major federal agencies, and encourage more high-risk, high-reward projects. Hillary will double, over 10 years, the research budgets at the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy?s Office of Science, the Defense Department, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Hillary will create a Services Science Initiative. Modeled on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the federal government will help support R&D in services; support and encourage cross-disciplinary research that draws on fields such as computer science, management, operations, and organizational behavior; and also facilitate the dissemination of knowledge. The Services Science Initiative will help improve the competitiveness of American business, and in the process, create jobs.

Lower taxes for middle class families by: extending the middle class tax cuts including child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, offering new tax cuts for healthcare, college and retirement, and expanding the EITC and the child care tax credit.



Holy shit. You think our budget is big now? Just you wait. You think our federal government is too big? Just you wait. Man oh man. Thats not even all of it.

And based on the tax rebate thread it appears most of you are against lowering income taxes for middle income America. She's wants to do just that. What a shitty choice.

At least she probably wont get the ticket

 

[XMan]

I laugh every time I read a thread lambasting Bush's spending. Hilary and Obama are going to make him look like a piker.

Government spending has never diminished in my lifetime.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: XMan
I laugh every time I read a thread lambasting Bush's spending. Hilary and Obama are going to make him look like a piker.

Government spending has never diminished in my lifetime.

Actually, the federal budget has not decreased ONE TIME from one year to the next since 1934.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

lol

She may SAY she does, and maybe she does. But guess what: Congress doesnt. End of story.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

She got us there. She was for it before she was against it.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

She got us there. She was for it before she was against it.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but what does that have to do with anything. Even if she was singlehandedly responsible for the Iraq war, it would still be better to stop the war and put that money into education and research instead.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

lol

She may SAY she does, and maybe she does. But guess what: Congress doesnt. End of story.

Do you mean in terms of Iraq or in terms of general spending? Either way it doesn't matter. Obviously if the president wants us to leave Iraq tomorrow he or she can just order the troops back to the US. Congress really doesn't get a say in that so you would be right it was end of story, but not the way you think.

If you're talking about general spending, then you are making the argument that the president is in thrall to Congress on spending initiatives anyway, so why does it matter who is president?

 

[nageov3t]

we're in for it no matter which democrat we vote for.

McCain's committed to the war in Iraq, but the only real difference between his position on the war and Hillbama's is that he's upfront about his commitment, whereas the D's are pandering to the left by coyly suggesting maybe ending it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I was watching her stump speech in TX, listening to her say things like "for those collage graduates who decide to work in the public sector, like teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters, and nurses, I will waive your college loan"...or this: "It's not fair for Wall Street money managers who make $50 million dollars a year pays less of a percentage of their income than a family that earns $50,000". Uh. What planet is she on? At $50k the income tax is about 14%. LOL A $50 million income pays less? hahahah not in THIS country.

Hey black, I think she's referring to hedge fund managers (IIRC), I if understand correctly all their is income is taxed as long term capital gain. I.e, 15%. It's a loophole Congress, specifically Shumer, has refused to correct.

Some of these other things sound like they could be pretty good. However, most government plans do but rarely work out well. So it all depends on how they go about it.

Other things in her plan strike me more as unneccessary entitlement - type things.

Look, if Congress could manage to discipline itself and slash earmarks/pork, a lot of money could be freed up for noble purposes.

I'd like some in MSM to ask her how she reconciles all these things with her claim to be more fiscally responsible than the Repubs. IMO, this needs some "splaining".

Fern

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

lol

She may SAY she does, and maybe she does. But guess what: Congress doesnt. End of story.

Do you mean in terms of Iraq or in terms of general spending? Either way it doesn't matter. Obviously if the president wants us to leave Iraq tomorrow he or she can just order the troops back to the US. Congress really doesn't get a say in that so you would be right it was end of story, but not the way you think.

If you're talking about general spending, then you are making the argument that the president is in thrall to Congress on spending initiatives anyway, so why does it matter who is president?

If you're giving so little credit to the prez, which you seem to be doing, then GWB is NOT responsible at all for our deficit.

Ooops caught ya.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I was watching her stump speech in TX, listening to her say things like "for those collage graduates who decide to work in the public sector, like teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters, and nurses, I will waive your college loan"...or this: "It's not fair for Wall Street money managers who make $50 million dollars a year pays less of a percentage of their income than a family that earns $50,000". Uh. What planet is she on? At $50k the income tax is about 14%. LOL A $50 million income pays less? hahahah not in THIS country.

Hey black, I think she's referring to hedge fund managers (IIRC), I if understand correctly all their is income is taxed as long term capital gain. I.e, 15%. It's a loophole Congress, specifically Shumer, has refused to correct.

Some of these other things sound like they could be pretty good. However, most government plans do but rarely work out well. So it all depends on how they go about it.

Other things in her plan strike me more as unneccessary entitlement - type things.

Look, if Congress could manage to discipline itself and slash earmarks/pork, a lot of money could be freed up for noble purposes.

I'd like some in MSM to ask her how she reconciles all these things with her claim to be more fiscally responsible than the Repubs. IMO, this needs some "splaining".

Fern

That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

lol

She may SAY she does, and maybe she does. But guess what: Congress doesnt. End of story.

Do you mean in terms of Iraq or in terms of general spending? Either way it doesn't matter. Obviously if the president wants us to leave Iraq tomorrow he or she can just order the troops back to the US. Congress really doesn't get a say in that so you would be right it was end of story, but not the way you think.

If you're talking about general spending, then you are making the argument that the president is in thrall to Congress on spending initiatives anyway, so why does it matter who is president?

If you're giving so little credit to the prez, which you seem to be doing, then GWB is NOT responsible at all for our deficit.

Ooops caught ya.

No, you didn't catch me at all? I was clearing up what arguments you must be using to say that Congress is going to speak and its going to be the end of the story. I think the president is very much responsible. What did you mean by Congress being the 'end of the story'?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

She got us there. She was for it before she was against it.

Many in this country were for the war, following 9-11, but, as even Hillary stated in one of her debates, she, as well as many Americans had no idea how obessed Bush would become about the war. I think most of us thought it would be more like an in and out operation.

Lies after lies and thousands of deaths later, most of us no longer support this war.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

lol

She may SAY she does, and maybe she does. But guess what: Congress doesnt. End of story.

Do you mean in terms of Iraq or in terms of general spending? Either way it doesn't matter. Obviously if the president wants us to leave Iraq tomorrow he or she can just order the troops back to the US. Congress really doesn't get a say in that so you would be right it was end of story, but not the way you think.

If you're talking about general spending, then you are making the argument that the president is in thrall to Congress on spending initiatives anyway, so why does it matter who is president?

If you're giving so little credit to the prez, which you seem to be doing, then GWB is NOT responsible at all for our deficit.

Ooops caught ya.

No, you didn't catch me at all? I was clearing up what arguments you must be using to say that Congress is going to speak and its going to be the end of the story. I think the president is very much responsible. What did you mean by Congress being the 'end of the story'?

Congress has alot more responsibility in spending than the prez. But thats been gone over umteen million times.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well, she wants to get us out of Iraq. So... considering how much we spend in Iraq every year, instead of pissing it away in the sand, she's going to spend it on education and research... historically about the two best bets for long term economic growth possible.

Sounds pretty good to me.

lol

She may SAY she does, and maybe she does. But guess what: Congress doesnt. End of story.

Do you mean in terms of Iraq or in terms of general spending? Either way it doesn't matter. Obviously if the president wants us to leave Iraq tomorrow he or she can just order the troops back to the US. Congress really doesn't get a say in that so you would be right it was end of story, but not the way you think.

If you're talking about general spending, then you are making the argument that the president is in thrall to Congress on spending initiatives anyway, so why does it matter who is president?

If you're giving so little credit to the prez, which you seem to be doing, then GWB is NOT responsible at all for our deficit.

Ooops caught ya.

No, you didn't catch me at all? I was clearing up what arguments you must be using to say that Congress is going to speak and its going to be the end of the story. I think the president is very much responsible. What did you mean by Congress being the 'end of the story'?

Congress has alot more responsibility in spending than the prez. But thats been gone over umteen million times.

Sure, I agree. What did you mean by your original statement? That's what I've been trying to figure out.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

Plenty of people pay more than 15% in taxes, how is this "more than fair"?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

Why shouldn't people who earn a lot of money pay more then the middle and lower classes? After all it is the fact that they live in this great country that allowed them to make money in the first place. They should help pay for that right. The "I gots mines" mentality is BS

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: blackangst1

That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

Why shouldn't people who earn a lot of money pay more then the middle and lower classes? After all it is the fact that they live in this great country that allowed them to make money in the first place. They should help pay for that right. The "I gots mines" mentality is BS

I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, forcing someone who makes a lot of money to distribute a lot of their wealth just because they are wealthy is socialist.

On the other hand, I'll never make that much money so screw em. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out which side of the argument is the angel and which is the devil.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: blackangst1
That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

Plenty of people pay more than 15% in taxes, how is this "more than fair"?

15% is fair is what I meant.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: blackangst1

That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

Why shouldn't people who earn a lot of money pay more then the middle and lower classes? After all it is the fact that they live in this great country that allowed them to make money in the first place. They should help pay for that right. The "I gots mines" mentality is BS

Reward them with higher taxes? Why the hell for? And if it's family money that the heir WANTED to leave behind, why "reward" him/her with higher taxes? The rich already pay the majority of taxes in this country, and the middle and lower class benefit more than they do. Why is it up to the rich to support them?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: blackangst1

That may be what she meant. And I understand that's how they are taxed. Which, IMHO, is more than fair. Just because they make that much money doesnt mean they should pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. So their tax rate is about the same as middle income America at $55k +. Flat tax FTW.

Of course thyis rule applies to so few people its insignificant.

Why shouldn't people who earn a lot of money pay more then the middle and lower classes? After all it is the fact that they live in this great country that allowed them to make money in the first place. They should help pay for that right. The "I gots mines" mentality is BS

I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, forcing someone who makes a lot of money to distribute a lot of their wealth just because they are wealthy is socialist.

On the other hand, I'll never make that much money so screw em. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out which side of the argument is the angel and which is the devil.

Your first statement is very true. Youre second statement is the very definition of class envy. If youre OK with that, cool. I guess.

 

[Deeko]

god this thread is a cryfest, and over nothing since Hillary won't be winning the nomination at this rate anyway.

(ps - the college tax credit mentioned is essentially in place already. she raises it somewhat, but its nothing new)

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Reward them with higher taxes? Why the hell for? And if it's family money that the heir WANTED to leave behind, why "reward" him/her with higher taxes? The rich already pay the majority of taxes in this country, and the middle and lower class benefit more than they do. Why is it up to the rich to support them?

What are you talking about? Reward them with higher taxes? The reward is the income and luxury they get for either the completely dumb luck of being born into it, working their ass off and succeeding, being really smart or a combination of the three. I'm not saying to tax them into the poor house. I find your point of view to be ridiculous.

 

[JSt0rm]

ohh and class envy is needed. Everyone dreams that one day they too will be rich. This allows them to accept that the rich are able to get away with a lot. If you took away the class envy as a democracy we would mobilize against the wealthy and elect people that would be very harsh towards those with the most. You won't see this though because people want to be rich. It is such a large driving force in this country that it is interwoven into our very fabric of being. All I'm saying is for those few that actually make it, they should pay a little more in % then the rest who are trying to get there.