DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Gregory Pratt]

Exactly. As I said earlier, he's not slutty enough (and again, since you Dems are so damn touchy, that's not an insult, it's just a fact of public opinion now-a-days.)

 

Bill Richardson is plenty slutty.

 

Ask his Lt. Governor.

[Cknolls]

At her cost estimate of $110 billion a year. In government speak that probably means about $200 billion a year. I also wonder if that estimate included the 12 million illegals that she wants to make citizens.

 

 

Clinton has no answers for undocumented immigrants

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — At a press briefing after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's health care rollout Monday, senior policy advisers said the New York senator's plan does not currently include any details on whether illegal immigrants will be covered.

 

Senior policy adviser Laurie Rubiner–while acknowledging that undocumented immigrants are a "huge issue" in this country–said, "That's one we're going to have to think through a little bit."

 

"We have not dealt with every single detail with this plan," Rubiner continued.

 

When asked if it would be safe to assume that the Democratic frontrunner, at this point, has no position on coverage for illegal immigrants advisers answered "yes" and said the plan does not "at this point" deal with that issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll answer for her.. YES IT DOES. Why? Because we're not supposed to ask anyone if they are legal/illegal. That's insensitive.. I'll bet my house that it costs more than 110 billion.

 

[StrangeSox]

Is there anyone here that's backing Hillary? I can't understand what anyone sees in her for the life of me.

[BigSqwert]

Sounds reasonable IMO.

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich and make it so most Americans can file their taxes in five minutes.

 

The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said.

 

Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is a front-runner for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, said during a speech at the Tax Policy Center that the present tax code reflects the wrong priorities because it rewards wealth instead of work.

 

"Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we've got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code," he said. "This isn't the invisible hand of the market at work. It's the successful work of special interests."

 

The result, according to Obama? "Gaps in wealth in this country grow wider, while the costs to working people are greater."

 

The plan means billions in breaks by: nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who make less than $50,000 annually and do not itemize their deductions, and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000.

 

"I'd reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person -- or $1,000 for each working family -- to offset the payroll tax that they're already paying," he said.

 

"Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans."

 

Obama also said he'd simplify the tax code so that any employed American with a bank account can do their taxes in minutes if they take the standard deduction. It makes sense, he said, because the Internal Revenue Service already collects wage and bank account information.

 

"There's no reason the IRS can't send Americans pre-filled tax forms to verify," he said. "This means no more worry. No more wasted time. No more extra expenses for a tax preparer."

 

Obama proposes funding the tax cuts by closing corporate loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens and increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy, he said.

 

He called his proposal a "fair" alternative to the present tax code and said it was necessary because hard times on Main Street translate to hard times on Wall Street.

 

"When the changes in our economy are leaving too many people behind, the competitiveness of our country risks falling behind," he said. "When that dream of opportunity is denied to too many Americans, then ultimately that pain has a way of trickling up."

[NorthSideSox72]

Sounds reasonable IMO.

I was OK with it until this phrase:

 

increasing the dividend-and-capital-gains tax for the wealthy

 

I am not sure what he means by "the wealthy", and that is crucial here. If you increase tax levels on dividends and cap gains, you decrease investment and business, and that hurts everyone. Now, if when he says wealthy, he means people who are truly so wealthy that they will invest a ton of money regardless of a few points in taxes, then that might have a minimal effect, and I might be OK with that. But how do you determine that? Income level doesn't appropriately reflect investment base, and you can't easily determine everyone's net worth or portfolio size, so... how would you propose that?

 

I suspect that Obama's plan uses income level because that is simply the only reasonable way to do it. That said, he'd better be talking about people with incomes of like 500k plus, or else his plan will actually have a decaying effect on the economy.

 

[StrangeSox]

"Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we've got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code," he said. "This isn't the invisible hand of the market at work. It's the successful work of special interests."

 

Now, instead of cutting costs by $1 trillion dollars in taxes, that $1 trillion is passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices, decreased quality, less investment in R&D, etc.

 

Corporation make their money from the people. If you make them pay more money, the people must pay more money.

 

And I'll agree completely with what NSS posted above. Often times, the definition of "wealthy" used by Democrats in cases like this is really "a little above average but not even upper-middle class."

Edited September 18, 2007 by StrangeSox

[EvilMonkey]

Now, instead of cutting costs by $1 trillion dollars in taxes, that $1 trillion is passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices, decreased quality, less investment in R&D, etc.

 

Corporation make their money from the people. If you make them pay more money, the people must pay more money.

 

And I'll agree completely with what NSS posted above. Often times, the definition of "wealthy" used by Democrats in cases like this is really "a little above average but not even upper-middle class."

I don't have a link, but I do recall that Charlie Rangle, while talking about the huge tax increase he wants to pass once the Dems take a veto-proof majority , set the number at those over $200,000 per year as beeing 'rich'. That is waaaaay too low.

[kapkomet]

Now, instead of cutting costs by $1 trillion dollars in taxes, that $1 trillion is passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices, decreased quality, less investment in R&D, etc.

 

Corporation make their money from the people. If you make them pay more money, the people must pay more money.

 

And I'll agree completely with what NSS posted above. Often times, the definition of "wealthy" used by Democrats in cases like this is really "a little above average but not even upper-middle class."

So are you saying a household income of something like $75K and above qualifies as "wealthy" by Democrat standards?

 

[kapkomet]

I don't have a link, but I do recall that Charlie Rangle, while talking about the huge tax increase he wants to pass once the Dems take a veto-proof majority , set the number at those over $200,000 per year as beeing 'rich'. That is waaaaay too low.

Well - $200k annually is starting to get there according to the current tax laws.

 

[StrangeSox]

So are you saying a household income of something like $75K and above qualifies as "wealthy" by Democrat standards?

 

I don't remember the details and don't have time to search and verify my memory right now (will after work), but I recall "wealthy" being defined as $80k+ in previous legislation proposals/ rheoteric. I'll try to find what I'm remembering later tonight.

[kapkomet]

ok... that sound about right to me.

 

Personally, I think that's dangerous. $80K for a household is NOT rich... no way in hell... and that always concerns me. If you double that, and start looking at the lifestyles of people who make that kind of money - now you start seeing the results of that kind of money.

[StrangeSox]

Here's something on the Department of Labor:

 

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/rasmus0207.html

"The Department of Labor goes so far as to define the “rich” as the top third (33 percent) of households with annual income levels of only $70,000 a year."

[kapkomet]

If they start raising taxes at that level, what a blood bath that will become.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

ok... that sound about right to me.

 

Personally, I think that's dangerous. $80K for a household is NOT rich... no way in hell... and that always concerns me. If you double that, and start looking at the lifestyles of people who make that kind of money - now you start seeing the results of that kind of money.

Yeah, I agree. If you increase the tax on cap gains and dividends for people above 75 or 80k income levels, you are disincenting the very people who are in the flexible middle of the investment base. The people who make between 80k and 200k are going to often be the people who invest some, but not a ton, and who would might be very sensitive to higher tax rates on the returns. I think its very dangerous to raise those taxes in that spectrum.

 

[Texsox]

I really dislike the layers and layers of taxes we pay.

[kapkomet]

I really dislike the layers and layers of taxes we pay.

But we have to pay for those immigrants somehow.

 

[Texsox]

But we have to pay for those immigrants somehow.

 

In this case, low income Americans would be the same as immigrants. But you really just want to bait.

[Rex Kickass]

Every detail that I've heard, in regards to Obama, about closing loopholes and rolling back previous tax cuts has to do with the magic salary of 250K annually.

[StrangeSox]

Every detail that I've heard, in regards to Obama, about closing loopholes and rolling back previous tax cuts has to do with the magic salary of 250K annually.

 

If Obama, or any candidate for that matter, wants to figure out a way to fund new programs, they should figure out how to roll back the budget and bloated government spending.

[Balta1701]

If Obama, or any candidate for that matter, wants to figure out a way to fund new programs, they should figure out how to roll back the budget and bloated government spending.

Get us out of Iraq and you pay for Hillary's entire Health Care plan.

[Rex Kickass]

If Obama, or any candidate for that matter, wants to figure out a way to fund new programs, they should figure out how to roll back the budget and bloated government spending.

 

Where do they roll back? Social programs might be tough to cut. As it is, the Section 8 housing money was only budgeted enough money to cover 11 months of the grant programs it offers 12 months of the year. A lot of landlords are getting stiffed their money this month.

[kapkomet]

Get us out of Iraq and you pay for Hillary's entire Health Care plan.

That's a GREAT way to look at it!

[southsider2k5]

Where do they roll back? Social programs might be tough to cut. As it is, the Section 8 housing money was only budgeted enough money to cover 11 months of the grant programs it offers 12 months of the year. A lot of landlords are getting stiffed their money this month.

 

I ride the train with tons of government employees. I know straight from their mouths how much effort most of our government agencies put in. A lack of profit motive means that there is zero motivation to be effectient and it shows. Lets just say that 90% of us would be fired for what passes a typical day in the federal workplace.

[Texsox]

\Lets just say that 90% of us would be fired for what passes a typical day in the federal workplace.

 

Like posting thousands of messages on an internet message board?

[Balta1701]

Politico

"Vice President [Dick] Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said just now (video) at a $100-a-head fundraiser at town hall near New York's Times Square, referring to Cheney's efforts shore up Republican congressional support for the Iraq war.

 

"I’m not invited to their meetings and I don’t know what he says or does," she said, in an informal conversation on stage with former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and retired General Wesley Clark. "But all the brave talk about bringing our troops home, and setting deadlines, and getting out by a certain date just dissipated."

 

She was referring specifically to the White House's successful effort to stem Republican support for Senator Jim Webb's legislation to limit troop deployments, which failed today in the Senate by a vote of 56-44, short of the 60 it needed to pass.