Clinton to go "scorched earth" - Page 5

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face without looking at the last 8 years.

Well said and I agree. What I can't understand is that she chose to "act tough" when she said Shame on Obama and "invited" him to a debate...

I think it is this very thing which will work against her. She is trying too hard to "seem tough" as I see it. If Hillary would just be herself instead of always trying to determine "what version of herself" she needs to be for the day I suspect she could have done much better in these last contests she lost.

It just seems she is constantly trying to reinvent who she is for the day at hand.

Am I wrong?

Fellows

If Obama does in fact raise taxes back up again, that would be the first time in quite a while that taxes were raised at the beginning of a recession - so we will have a comparison point. Looking at his plan further, though, I am thinking that he does not intend to raise extra revenue, just to move taxes from the middle class to the upper class (and reduce the percentage of Americans that pay into the tax system as a result).

side note - this "e-number economic manifesto" that I promised is too much like work, I have lost interest and no longer intend to fulfill my promises made earlier about producing it. 8)

Two words, SDW: Payroll taxes. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, and that's what Obama's tax cut focuses on. Those IRS numbers do not include payroll taxes, nor do they include sales taxes or any other kinds of taxes, almost all of which fall harder on people with less money. In short, it's misleading to suggest that federal income taxes are the only taxes people pay, and then claim that it proves only the rich pay taxes.

I think that Payroll taxes *are* income taxes, frankly - and it is my great fear that somebody will remove the income cap associated with the payroll taxes. That would suck with such an infinite suckatude. Paris Hilton and I would have to go back to *fake* diamond encrusted iPods.

That is Obama's position. And to think, you could have saved that $100 you gave him to go towards your new diamond pink iPod.

If he does, then the great game starts - played by me and the rest of the rich people. How do you legally minimize your tax burden under the new rules? You can do it by moving to capital gains instead of dividends, by taking advantage of tax treaties with foreign nations, by spending a lot to expand your business (through deductible expenses and capital depreciation), by moving from short term to long term gains, etc.

If he just adds new tax rebates and exclusions (adding extra tax laws instead of wiping the slate clean and starting over with a new progressive income tax law) then that game is fairly easy. I actually hope, though, that he follows the recommendations of the tax commission and gets rid of all the complexity of tax law while maintaining the same level of progressive tax burden.

No...but what else can she do? If she returned to the old angry Hillary, and let it all hang out her campaign would collapse. The "I'm sick and tired" ranting was santized by her handlers a long time ago (for good reason). Or more to the point, the personality she uses against Republicans work for feeding the Democrats when aimed at the right; but when fellow Democrats get an ounce of the same personal style treatment they are horrified, defend Obama and suddenly "wake up" to her personality and character. Her savaging would be effective running against "evil" Bush, and perhaps McCain, but not against Obama.


Will the mocking work as well as the tears? I don't think so. Obama has a bit of the Ronnie Reagan in him, and people are likely to resent attacking an optomistic romantic.

Please cite the origin of this chart, as usual you post some "data" and don't link the image/data to the underlying source. Figures. \ EDIT: Never mind, I found it myself, from the usual "suspects."

Also if you want to discuss this some more, then start a new thread, you started this thread as a Clinton to go "scorcher earth", and I don't want to derail this thread from it's initial "intended" purpose.

Doesn't look like any of her new tactics are working.

Obama up 4 points in TX in CNN poll.

The superdelegates are jumping over now. But Hillary will fight like a cat to keep going. I think she's all out of options.

Riots in the streets? Super delegates will not be the start of that, outright cheating or only the unthinkable could. You know what I mean. Doesn't mean the riots are out of the question though with the way things are going. But the last one was the L.A. riots. We've become pretty lazy people, or too occupied with the everyday non-stop schedules of our lives.

<tin foil>

North American Army created without OK by Congress




Shoppers warned bigger bills on way




Bush Moves Toward Martial Law




Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers

Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight




</tin foil>

Whew. Well, we'll have to see won't we?

The superdelegates are jumping over now. But Hillary will fight like a cat to keep going. I think she's all out of options.

Riots in the streets? Super delegates will not be the start of that, outright cheating or only the unthinkable could. You know what I mean. Doesn't mean the riots are out of the question though with the way things are going. But the last one was the L.A. riots. We've become pretty lazy people, or too occupied with the everyday non-stop schedules of our lives.

<tin foil>

North American Army created without OK by Congress




Shoppers warned bigger bills on way




Bush Moves Toward Martial Law




Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers




</tin foil>

Whew. Well, we'll have to see won't we?

The data is from the Tax Foundation, which in turn "claims" the IRS is the source (no link to data source(s)).


Tax Foundation (Wikipedia)

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Tax Foundation Figures Produce Misleading and Inaccurate Impressions of Middle Class Tax Burdens


Like the aforementioned Tax Foundation and the Heritage Foundation. Figures.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Wikipedia)

I "suggested" a new thread since I'm about to drop a boatload of OMB graphs on you, I guess I'll start the new thread myself, once I''ve completed the graphs. \

Max I know we don't always agree but "gosh darn it" you seem to have nailed this... It is refreshing when people can speak with straight talk!

And you know I am not talking about McCain here... I have to hand it to you..

Fellows

OBAMA 2008

Hey Shawn are you voting in your state primary?

Fellows

Why do riots concern you? Are you afraid that blacks, the overall poor, disenfranchised and hippies will rape, loot and pillage West Chester?


Not encourage, but certainly can declare it if the need arises.


Dude, the <tin foil></tin foil> was there for a reason. It's World Net Daily. I not afraid of the consequences or decisions that may be made concerning rioting or anarchy. It's out of my hands. Let fate decide.

Until then I'm stocking up on guns, duct tape, canned goods, bottled water and Ramen noodles for the coming apocalypse.



...and exercising.

As long as the race is still going!

(I hope not.)

Thanks. No we don't always agree, but quite aside from policy I've always liked to 'get in the head' of politicians AND how that plays with mass appeal. I've never had much of a problem understanding the Clintons, or Bush, or Kerry (etc.). At the moment though, I'm still trying to get a fix on Obama the man.

The biographer's of Reagan always had a tough time finding "the man" behind the President - it took them along time to discover that his public man was identical to the private one. He was motivated by a set of attitudes that was laid out in his daily comments, letters, and addresses.

I suspect Obama is a bit like that EXCEPT that his views are not as ideologically integrated or developed. With only a few exceptions, I imagine most of his personality is also expressed plainly in his comments and book(s). The only character flaw I see is that he seems to be comfortable with rhetorical stylings that doesn't say much. He's enjoying the process of public speaking as mutual fun (complete with fainting women being rescued and fatherly reassurances to followers that he is not afraid of someone doing him in) at the expense of content.

NOW, Hillary would have one small chance to turn it around...she needs a sudden national security crisis. She needs something "serious" on the minds of infatuated romantics...a bit of cold water and fear. Her 'toughness' would suddenly contrast with Obama. She needs what McCain will need, the perception that raw youth and naiveté' is to risky in a world of terrorists and WMD.

I hope the era of fear is over.

One thing I think that really works for Obama is that he is not a Bush or a Clinton by name.

I realize that McCain is not a Bush or a Clinton either but the man is just like Bush when it comes to the war in Iraq which most Americans view as a mistake. McCain seems like more of the same and most Americans are sick of where this country is now in terms of international opinion of America (cowboy diplomacy), our economic situation where the middle class is under attack, health care problems etc. McCain does not seem to discuss the economy much and he is on the wrong side of this war issue. These two issues are most important and he is without a clue so it seems...

This country likes the idea of a candidate who did not vote for this war.

Ohh and btw Max, I hope you get a nice long 8 years to get to know and study Barack Obama

Fellows

The window for McCain is gone - he should have won the 2000 election and been our president, things would have gone much better.

However, I won't be horrified if he gets to be our president - there are a lot of things that will go well.

- I still strongly believe that our only real energy option for the next 50 years involves lots of Plutonium (breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing). If this is so, then we cannot suffer small countries to live - they need to merge into larger countries, and the best way to get this to happen is for them to unite against us.

If we try to control the world, it will cause places like South America to merge into large trading/defense blocs that are effectively single countries (like the EU). We really need this to happen, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

- I will be happy that taxes are not raised, the national debt will go up but it is still at a manageable level (60% of GDP, compare that to 200% of GDP for Japan - they are in big trouble).

- I am pretty sure he will do a good job on immigration and border security, without tinging it with racism or pandering to unions.

- Free trade = National security. Countries with a lot of trade ties tend not to attack each other, for example we will never go to war with China. We need that kind of relationship with the large blocs that will form in South America and Africa.

- If he really does ends pork barrel spending and other government waste, then he will probably end up in the top "10 presidents of all time" list.

- They won't take our guns away (well, I don't own a gun, but they won't take my neighbor's guns away).

My worries about McCain

- What about the gay folks - will he kick them around like all the other Repubs do?
- Will he continue to suck up to the horrible Christians after he gets elected
- killing Roe v Wade = doubled murder rate in 20 years.

I predict HRC fails to win as she would need to March 4th.

If this is the case I have a simple question. How can she go across the country with a theme of "Solutions for America" when she seemingly has not a single viable "solution" for saving her own campaign?

If she has all this "experience" why has it done her seemingly little good WRT her own campaign?

I think that is a very good question...

Fellows

She's clearly not a good manager or decision-maker. On her one big policy that she tried to implement - health care in 1994 - it was a total flop. On the one big foreign policy decision she had to make when she was senator - to go to war with Iraq - she made the wrong choice. And in her campaign to be president, she took a sure thing and frittered it away. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence on what's supposed to be her strongest traits, policy and management and getting things done.

If HRC does indeed go toes up, under the house...

Clinton for President 2012/2016?

Correct on all accounts.

2016: Chelsea Clinton vs. Tagg Romney.

Well, she won't be 45 until 2025.

Is Obama even 45?

I was of the mind that she should leave the race... but... you know what, McCain may be campaigning but he is being virtually ignored by the press, AND the Democrats are pulling off one of the most democratic primaries in history... let her have her cake, I don't believe she will be eating it, though...

franksargent - you do realise that the chart you just posted really has very little to do with the numbers you are objecting to, don't you? Rich people pay almost all of the income taxes, SDWs numbers are right - if you want to prove him wrong you really have to find your own numbers, not just some unrelated graph.

Here is the latest report from the cbo - it includes payroll taxes, btw:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...TaxRates.shtml

Of course Rich people pay most of the income taxes. Rich people have most of the income!

When the top 10% of wage earners earn 90% of all wages paid, they should pay at least 90% of all the wage taxes. It will be more than 90% when you take into consideration allowances and standard deductions even with a flat tax system that includes any sort of allowances. Duh.

Republicans and certain right-wing Libertarians like saying it's not fair that the rich pay the most taxes because it's a very simple point of conjecture to stupid people with no economic understanding. Of course rich people pay the majority of taxes! They earn most of the income!

You also have to admit that those 10% of top wage earners also have an inordinate share of non-wage related income, which because of investment related incentives, is generally taxed far less than straight wages. So their tax burden as a percentage of their total income when you take into consideration wage income as well as other income, is often less than that of their lowest level employees. This was exactly the point Warren Buffet made when he objected to the Bush Tax cut plan. After the proposed Bush tax cuts, he's be paying less than 20% of his total income in taxes, while his secretary would be paying over 30%. Please tell me how that was fair. Warren Buffet didn't think it was fair either.

Of course the problem with the US, Brazil, Hong Kong and any other nation with a FUCKING RIDICULOUS wealth gap is that the top 10% of the wage earners have the lion's share of power, as well, and in faithful self-interest mode, tend to make decisions that favor their own economic positions, often to the detriment of others. This is exactly why we need corrective systems (like a minimum wage and forced corporate pension systems) in place. Otherwise we'd end up with a bunch of Waltons lording over hordes of staff living below the poverty line, "because they can".

Please read link before spouting BS - it has percentage of income and percentages of tax paid.

top 10% earn 40.9% of income, pay 54.7% of taxes. Top 1% earns 18% of the income and pays 38% of the tax. That is actual tax paid vs actual income, straight from the government.

It is right there in the link I posted that you didn't bother to read.