Did I Just Hear Hillary Say She Was Going To Raise Taxes On The Middle Class

[Revoltingest]

seems Snoops disagrees with you.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-raise-taxes/

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear.

I wonder......
I'll wager @Underhill's left one that as prez, she'd raise taxes upon the middle class.
(Yes I'm that certain, & willing to take chances with it.)
Could she be so artful that she purposely said an indistinct "are"/"aren't" so that
her audience would think she planned no increase on them, but then she can
later claim that she never broke a promise to not raise them?
Nah....that's too far fetched.
But she has already promised to raise taxes which the middle class folk pay.
Ref.....http://www.atr.org/hillarys-250000-tax-pledge-flip-flop

Perhaps she's rationalizing these increases as not solely upon the middle class, &
therefore is not a "middle class tax increase" (depending upon the definition of "is").
From analyses I've seen in the past, the revenue increase she'd need for what
she promises couldn't come only from the 1%. Moreover, it's unlikely that she'd
cook the golden goose with which she has such a close & profitable relationship.
She'll either raise taxes on her ostensibly beloved demographic group, or she'll
cut government spending. You may pick your most likely option.

Either way, I feel a mental image of her forming....

 

[Underhill]

Everyone heard what they wanted to hear.

I wonder......
I'll wager @Underhill's left one that as prez, she'd raise taxes upon the middle class.
(Yes I'm that certain, & willing to take chances with it.)
Could she be so artful that she purposely said an indistinct "are"/"aren't" so that
her audience would think she planned no increase on them, but then she can
later claim that she never broke a promise to not raise them?
Nah....that's too far fetched.
But she has already promised to raise taxes which the middle class folk pay.
Ref.....http://www.atr.org/hillarys-250000-tax-pledge-flip-flop

Perhaps she's rationalizing these increases as not solely upon the middle class, &
therefore is not a "middle class tax increase" (depending upon the definition of "is").
From analyses I've seen in the past, the revenue increase she'd need for what
she promises couldn't come only from the 1%. Moreover, it's unlikely that she'd
cook the golden goose with which she has such a close & profitable relationship.
She'll either raise taxes on her ostensibly beloved demographic group, or she'll
cut government spending. You may pick your most likely option.

Either way, I feel a mental image of her forming....

Let's be realistic though. Out of those things she wants to do, what percentage will happen? 10%? 5%? Obama managed to do one thing out of a laundry list of hopefuls. Bush and Bill weren't much better.

The reality is that she might get one or two bills off her list of things she wants to do. So will taxes need to go up? Depends on what she manages to do. But let's not pretend that any "plan" is anything more than pipe dreams.

And that is certainly true of Trump too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's be realistic though. Out of those things she wants to do, what percentage will happen? 10%? 5%? Obama managed to do one thing out of a laundry list of hopefuls. Bush and Bill weren't much better.

The reality is that she might get one or two bills off her list of things she wants to do. So will taxes need to go up? Depends on what she manages to do. But let's not pretend that any "plan" is anything more than pipe dreams.

History shows that presidents are quite effective at accomplishing some things which they want.....
- Altering taxes
- Starting & continuing wars
- Increasing spending.
Given that Hilda has designs on these, I'd say the odds are in her favor.

Trump's inexperience is being criticized because he'll be ineffective in office.
There is sometimes much to be said for ineffective presidents.

 

[Underhill]

History shows that presidents are quite effective at accomplishing some things which they want.....
- Altering taxes
- Starting & continuing wars
- Increasing spending.
Given that Hilda has designs on these, I'd say the odds are in her favor.

Altering taxes is, and should be, a reactionary policy. Spending increases, taxes should increase. Spending decreases, they should go down.

Increased spending has been a virtual constant among all presidents for most of the last century. Bill and Obama have been ranked among the best and it still increased with both of them.

But you are right. The one consistent difference (along with what they spend money on) is whether they pay for these spending increases. Bush certainly didn't. Reagan didn't at first and cut taxes while increasing taxes. He realized his mistake and raised taxes at the end of his term. Carter, Clinton and Obama have generally raised taxes (or let tax cuts expire in Obama's case) because it was necessary.

Will Clinton raise them? I have no clue. But I would rather she pay for spending rather than increase the debt as has been the purview of the right.

Trump's inexperience is being criticized because he'll be ineffective in office.
There is sometimes much to be said for ineffective presidents.

I might agree with you if we hadn't spent the last 6 years in gridlock. But we need progress at this point. Infrastructure is in dire straights, the health care bill desperately needs to be reworked and we have potentially 3 supreme court seats opening up. Ineffectual could be a disaster.

 

[metis]

They could just release the transcript and tell folks to "**** off". Jus' sayin'...

It was released at least by this morning as they played her taped statements with the words underneath on the Today show.

Also, Hillary has repeatedly stated that it is not the middle class that needs a tax increase but those in the top 1% especially. So, if there were any doubts that any had, it really isn't that difficult to Google where she's coming from on that issue.

 

[YmirGF]

It was released at least by this morning as they played her taped statements with the words underneath on the Today show.

Also, Hillary has repeatedly stated that it is not the middle class that needs a tax increase but those in the top 1% especially. So, if there were any doubts that any had, it really isn't that difficult to Google where she's coming from on that issue.

Well, for the most part, us 1%-ers can afford to pay a bit more, but taxes for the middle class will inevitably have to go up. There is simply too much in the way of unfunded liabilities to be covered by taxing just the 1%. In my view, this will inevitably spread to the top 5% and the top 10% and likely even further down the tube. We just have this tendency to elect economic illiterates to guide us through this process.

Here in LotusLand, my government was particularly sneaky with taxes. They have managed to keep taxes down while at the same time raising fees and costs for all government services to the taxpayer. We pay a bit more for our health care premium. We pay a bit more for tolls on a shiny new bridges. Pay a bit more for transit and high speed light rail. Pay a bit more for Auto insurance and electricity... etc etc... that is where the middle class and the poor are really feeling the pinch. In my view such things are simply inevitable given how much we have come to rely on government to provide a vast array of services. Oh, and BTW, we have the best economy in the country currently.

 

[metis]

Well, for the most part, us 1%-ers can afford to pay a bit more, but taxes for the middle class will inevitably have to go up. There is simply too much in the way of unfunded liabilities to be covered by taxing just the 1%. In my view, this will inevitably spread to the top 5% and the top 10% and likely even further down the tube. We just have this tendency to elect economic illiterates to guide us through this process.

Here in LotusLand, my government was particularly sneaky with taxes. They have managed to keep taxes down while at the same time raising fees and costs for all government services to the taxpayer. We pay a bit more for our health care premium. We pay a bit more for tolls on a shiny new bridges. Pay a bit more for transit and high speed light rail. Pay a bit more for Auto insurance and electricity... etc etc... that is where the middle class and the poor are really feeling the pinch. In my view such things are simply inevitable given how much we have come to rely on government to provide a vast array of services. Oh, and BTW, we have the best economy in the country currently.

Yes, I do think it's a forgone conclusion that over the next several decades and more that taxes will have to go up for even more than just upper-income families because of various social programs, such as Medicare, Social Security, etc.-- too many old-- er, I mean "mature"-- folks like me. However, as I mentioned on another post, repairing and improving the infrastructure has the best return for the buck, especially since it creates more jobs locally, which is where we want the growth to occur for the best effect.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, I do think it's a forgone conclusion that over the next several decades and more that taxes will have to go up for even more than just upper-income families because of various social programs, such as Medicare, Social Security, etc.-- too many old-- er, I mean "mature"-- folks like me. However, as I mentioned on another post, repairing and improving the infrastructure has the best return for the buck, especially since it creates more jobs locally, which is where we want the growth to occur for the best effect.

I do agree. Infrastructure really is one area to invest in. It's a win/win thing, really. Personally, I'd also like to see a Kennedy-esque initiative (the take us to the moon one) in the area of alternate energy sources. A veritable "Manhattan Project" to find a viable, renewable energy source to replace our addiction to fossil fuels. Such an initiative has the potential to create a kazillion jobs. Ok, OK, OK! I'm a dreamer... ...but I know I not the only one...


Memory lane moment: I still remember that awesome speech that Kennedy gave. I was only 6 or 7 at the time and was still filled with excitement, awe and wonder. Then I went outside and played.

 

[tytlyf]

seems Snoops disagrees with you.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/04/hillary-clinton-raise-taxes/

I heard it, everyone in the audience heard it. Only your information sources wanted to spin it. Sounded like aren't to me. Which is exactly what she meant. It wouldn't make sense for democrats to raise taxes on the middle class, that's not our policy. Our policy is to raise taxes on corporations and the top 1% because they don't pay their fair share.

Remember, it's republicans that want lower taxes on the rich and higher on the middle class. Don't you remember Rmoney saying "47% of America doesn't pay income tax?" That sure sounds like he doesn't like that and wants to raise taxes on the middle class.

I'm in the middle class, I have no business voting republican.

 

[columbus]

I do agree. Infrastructure really is one area to invest in. It's a win/win thing, really.

And while roads and sewers and such are great investments, the single biggest and most "return on investment" infrastructure improvement is

EDUCATION!

From teachers stimulating the economy with their paycheck to cranking the productivity of the whole citizenry, there simply isn't a better investment than teaching people stuff.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I might agree with you if we hadn't spent the last 6 years in gridlock.

I saw too much cooperation....
- Continuing the wars
- Obamacare
- Failed economic policy

But we need progress at this point. Infrastructure is in dire straights, the health care bill desperately needs to be reworked and we have potentially 3 supreme court seats opening up. Ineffectual could be a disaster.

Some thoughts.....
- Hillary (the author of the old Hillarycare) is one of the last people I'd want overhauling Obamacare.
Trump's plan is sensible.
- To point to the risk of Donald's judicial appointments ignores the risk of Hillary's.
- Infrastructure does indeed demand more attention.
But that is one small item on her massive list of increased expenditures....
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
- Donald has also campaigned on fixing infrastructure.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-than-half-trillion-dollars-on-infrastructure
- I say it's impossible to promise all that she has on taxation & spending.
What will give?
That will be hard to predict, particularly if she embarks on a more militaristic foreign adventurism agenda than did Obama.
Under Trump, a cheaper foreign policy could enable what he promises.
- Time to focus upon defense instead of offense.

 

[YmirGF]

And while roads and sewers and such are great investments, the single biggest and most "return on investment" infrastructure improvement is

EDUCATION!

From teachers stimulating the economy with their paycheck to cranking the productivity of the whole citizenry, there simply isn't a better investment than teaching people stuff.
Tom

While true, Tom, and to a large extend, I do agree, we have to have a focused education program. It would be pretty sad if in a 100 years we have a million folks with their Doctorate in Women's Studies or Doctorates in Gender Studies.

 

[Revoltingest]

While true, Tom, and to a large extend, I do agree, we have to have a focused education program. It would be pretty sad if in a 100 years we have a million folks with their Doctorate in Women's Studies or Doctorates in Gender Studies.

You left out "victimization studies" & "international diversity studies"!
(Yes, they're real programs.)

I know it's really old fashioned, but we need education geared more towards training
people to do useful things, thereby contributing to economic efficiency & competitiveness.
I just don't see Hilda valuing this.

 

[Underhill]

I saw too much cooperation....
- Continuing the wars
- Obamacare
- Failed economic policy

What economic policy? By the end of Obama's second year, nothing was going through congress. There may have been a policy but literally nothing was implimented.

Some thoughts.....
- Hillary (the author of the old Hillarycare) is one of the last people I'd want overhauling Obamacare.
Trump's plan is sensible.
- To point to the risk of Donald's judicial appointments ignores the risk of Hillary's.
- Infrastructure does indeed demand more attention.
But that is one small item on her massive list of increased expenditures....
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
- Donald has also campaigned on fixing infrastructure.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...-than-half-trillion-dollars-on-infrastructure
- I say it's impossible to promise all that she has on taxation & spending.
What will give?
That will be hard to predict, particularly if she embarks on a more militaristic foreign adventurism agenda than did Obama.
Under Trump, a cheaper foreign policy could enable what he promises.
- Time to focus upon defense instead of offense.

If I thought all of that were true, I might agree with you. But I have a serious problem believing Trumps appointments will be better when he has promised to only back appointees who want to dismantle abortion rights among other things for the religious right.

What it boils down to is Trump scares me more than Hillary. I know you disagree. But I will never understand it. 20 minutes listening to Trump and I am rethinking the abandoned cold war plans for a nuclear bunker under the garage.

 

[columbus]

While true, Tom, and to a large extend, I do agree, we have to have a focused education program. It would be pretty sad if in a 100 years we have a million folks with their Doctorate in Women's Studies or Doctorates in Gender Studies.

I realize that there are risks with long term investment.
There's also the risk that you'll spend a gazillion dollars on highways, then have the ME blow up and fuel goes to $20 gallon. Or build a state of the art water/sewage plant in a town whose top employer moves to China.
Oops....
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

What economic policy? By the end of Obama's second year, nothing was going through congress. There may have been a policy but literally nothing was implimented.

Obamacare was part of his economic policy....all the promised savings & efficiencies.
And there was his utterly useless homeowner assistance program. (One could only
qualify for assistance if one had perfect credit, ie, if one didn't even need it.)

If I thought all of that were true, I might agree with you. But I have a serious problem believing Trumps appointments will be better when he has promised to only back appointees who want to dismantle abortion rights among other things for the religious right.

I didn't say Trump's appointments would be better,
only that Hillary's pose the same kind of risk.
Are these all black guys....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/

What it boils down to is Trump scares me more than Hillary. I know you disagree.

No, I agree that he scares you more.
So I'm not trying to convince you to change your vote.

But I will never understand it. 20 minutes listening to Trump and I am rethinking the abandoned cold war plans for a nuclear bunker under the garage.

You could read Hilda's voting record on the wars while you lounge there!

 

[tytlyf]

Obama has improved the economy drastically, don't listen to RW media lie about that. They do it daily. Want another recession? Vote republican. Thankfully, Bill Clinton is on board and when he was president the economy was amazing.

 

[columbus]

You left out "victimization studies" & "international diversity studies"!
(Yes, they're real programs.)

Since this derail is more interesting than the OP ...
I knew a woman who rode Affirmative Action all the way to a PhD in "African Language ". She never got a job afterwards. She wouldn't take less than $75K, because she had a PhD. So, she lived off her husband's earnings as an engineer and complained about how unfair life is for educated black women.
Tom

 

[YmirGF]

Obama has improved the economy drastically, don't listen to RW media lie about that. They do it daily. Want another recession? Vote republican. Thankfully, Bill Clinton is on board and when he was president the economy was amazing.

I supposed moving from life support and returning to ER is an improvement, but I don't think I've read ANY economist talk about how dramatically better the economy has become. The only reason people look to the American economy as a good investment is because Europe is still an economic basket-case.

You left out "victimization studies" & "international diversity studies"!
(Yes, they're real programs.)

I know it's really old fashioned, but we need education geared more towards training
people to do useful things, thereby contributing to economic efficiency & competitiveness.
I just don't see Hilda valuing this.

International diversity? LOL. Isn't something that is international diverse to begin with? If I'm especially bored after tending to the trees I'll have to look into that one.

 

[Revoltingest]

International diversity? LOL. Isn't something that is international diverse to begin with? If I'm especially bored after tending to the trees I'll have to look into that one.

I recall a radio show on NPR some years ago, wherein a guest was complaining
that she had her bachelor's degree & had been job seeking for a couple years.
She'd done all the right things (in her view) such as sending out resumes to hundreds
of companies. But no one was interested in her. So the show became about the job
climate, but never addressing what she could offer an employer. Then, near the end of
the show, she said her degree from Howard University was in "international diversity studies".

It would've cost her less time & money to get an associate's degree in heating & cooling.
Now there is a field always looking for new hires. Even here!