Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

HILLARY BLEW IT when she tried to make the case the top 6% earners are 'Middle Class'....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:13 AM
Original message
HILLARY BLEW IT when she tried to make the case the top 6% earners are 'Middle Class'....
I am an Edwards supporter, but Obama's response really put the wood to her when Clinton tried to fudge the numbers by saying she would not lift the cap on Social Security because she would not instituted a $1 trillion tax 'on the backs of the Middle Class.'

Obama correctly pointed out that only 6% of taxpayers earn more than $97,000/yr, and that 6% are NOT the middle class.

The killer statement was that the rest (94%) pay social security tax on 100% of their earnings.

The video of this confrontation would make a killer Campaign Ad opposing Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Indeed, it would make a fantastic political ad for the Obama campaign. It truly showed how she's trying to pander to the right...and more importantly, how out of touch she is with the real middle class.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Through deception she was appealing DIRECTLY to that 6% who are NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS...
It just amazes me she can be exposed like that and you never hear another word about it by the official MSM political pundits.

All we hear are the unwarranted compliments for her --in most cases from former Clinton connected supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. We call them "the haves, and the have-MORES"; she calls them her BASE. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Hmmmm.... now where have I heard that before??? LOL (See Bushisms)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
46.  I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
NO MORE CLINTONS.. NO MORE BUSHES!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Self delete..
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 02:55 AM by Indi Guy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. America needs that information
Only 6% of workers earn more than $97,500. Only 2% of households have incomes higher than $200,000. The majority of Americans are not wealthy professionals or the uber rich. It's time we quit letting the government write laws for the benefit of a handful of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. This was exactly the same approach Repubs used to try and kill the Estate Tax...
... by lying to the AMerican people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
60. holy cripes, those numbers are astounding.
Clinton really put both feet in her mouth, didn't she? but all's okay, there are people covering for her blunders like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. They are -- in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Silicon Valley
and other big urban centers. This is a huge problem. It was part of the problem with Bush's veto of the SCHIP. $70,000 might mean wealth in a small town in Mississippi, but if a family has a seriously disabled child who is not eligible for normal insurance in L.A., the family might not be able to afford medical care for that child even if they earn $70,000.

Of course, to be fair, on the other side of the argument, we are talking here about $90,000 per wageearner not necessarily per family. That amounts to $180,000 or at least even more than $90,000 for the family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. You make an excellent point about a handful of special situations, but nationally Obama was right...
... and anyone who has ever lived in a 'big city' knows that the economic rules just do not apply there like they do in the rest of the country.

Even so, it was a definite stealth attempt on Hillary's part to deceive the public by using the term 'middle class' to refer to the top 6% of taxpayers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. Blackhatjack, as a fellow Edwards supporter, I think you're wrong
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:00 AM by spooky3
about this, if you go beyond the probably unresolvable argument over subjective labels.

1) Social Security is NOT in a crisis, according to many progressive economists. The problem is that Gore's lockbox concept should have been adopted and it was not. Bush's war and transfer payments to his cronies are the crisis, and it is wrong to take money from the pockets of hard working people that they will never see back in their retirement checks.
2) Edwards' own plan treats households between about $100 - $200 K very differently from the much higher income households.
3) One reason for this is that I think he correctly understands that many households depend on one income or just part of one income, e.g., in the case of a single person paying all the household expenses, perhaps with children or disabled persons in it; or supporting a relative supporting a family abandoned by a spouse in another household. Their SS benefits are already capped under current law - living to the same age, they will never get back as high a proportion of what they paid in as a salary earner in a lower income family. Why should they pay a lot more in social security tax (proportionate to their total pay) than the dual earners next door who make $75000 each for a combined income of $150000 per year, when the major part of their current and future fixed living costs are quite similar and the dual earners will get far more back when they retire?
4) If Social Security paid wage earners back anything close to proportionate to what they paid in, raising the cap would be equitable. But it doesn't. Even if you pay the maximum for 40 years of working, you can expect less than about $25K per year back when you retire - and if you are single and die the day after you retire, you get virtually nothing - even if you have dependents.
5) It's not just a "handful" of special situations. Most people live in urban areas (including suburbs) in this country, and in many of those, $97500 isn't poverty but it does not buy a lifestyle that affords many luxuries. The mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance alone on a below average sized house within reasonable commuting distance of work would eat up close to third or even half of that in many cities that pay that level of salary. I live in one of these areas. In Fairfax County, the median household income is over $100K per year (and costs are very high). I guarantee you that if you ask anyone in the DC Metro Area if people who make $97500 are rich, he/she would laugh. People living in such areas heard Obama and wondered how he could be so out of touch with reality.
6) There are many households in this country who get many $$$ from investment income that FICA doesn't touch. One of Edwards' key points is that it is wrong for the overall tax rates on these households to be substantially lower than for wage earners. The Obama SS proposal would exacerbate this unfairness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
39. the cap applies to individual income, not household.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
58. yes, I am aware of that, as my post indicates.
Edited on Sun Nov-18-07 01:58 PM by spooky3
See point #3 in particular for how that contributes to the inequity of raising the cap.

So I am not sure what point you are trying to make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
49. I live in Fairfax County...
...and I can tell you that $97,000 is definitely not rich here. There was a time, not too many years ago, when $97,000 per year would have seemed like all the money in the world to me. But at the time, I lived in Montgomery, Alabama, where a family could live nicely on that amount. Not the same at all in suburban DC, nor in most large urban/suburban areas, I would guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #49
59. welcome to DU, FLDCVADem, neighbor!
I'm in Arlington Co and you are definitely right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. I think we're all in love with the idea that everyone in the US
is really "middle-class".

Strictly speaking, it's an abused term.

But it's also true that comparisons based only on numbers can be deceiving: 97k in NYC certainly doesn't buy what it might in Arkansas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
30. All true.
And I was sure Clinton was thinking in terms of her NYC constituents -- for many of whom 97k isn't exactly mega-wealth.

But I also totally think all income should be subject. A cut-off is basically regressive, asking those making least to pay more than those making the most. Perhaps a percentage of total income earned would be the better measure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. I agree. All income should be subject to the Social Security
tax. Remember, this tax also pays for benefits to the disabled and to certain families in which a parent is deceased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
42. These politicians are smart enough to know that by now we need a regionalization
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:44 PM by truedelphi
Of the overall system.

In my view, renters in many areas should be given tax credits. If it is not possible to rent even a studio apartment for less than $ 700 a month, why not some kinda tax break.

And the person renting that $ 700 a month apartment might not ever get to be a home owner.

So a vast group of people have lost the mortgage deduction - which has always been defended as the way to ensure that a country has a middle class (Homeownership = middle class)

Same with the situation of $ 97 K and social security. If you are supporting a sopuse and three kids on that paycheck, and are living in an expensive area of the country, you should be able to "deduct" a portion of that income.

But let's say you are a bachelor who still lives a home with mom. In that case $ 97 K is a veritable fortune.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. The landlord gets what tax break there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indi Guy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. Hillary also blew it when she took PAC $$$ from Ruppert Murdock & the like...
Gak!...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
8. Be fair- she also says DC Lobbyists are regular hardworking folks with families to feed.
So don't judge her too harshly:
She's not REALLY a lying sack of corporate-koolaid-drinking monkeyshit,
she's just a good ol'-fashioned clueless and out-of-touch panderer!

Dude: If it was up to her, she would TOTALLY let you eat cake every day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. You are wrong my friend. She is NOT clueless... she very well knows exactly what she is doing...
... and all that corporate money does have strings attached to it. She just tries very hard to appeal on their behalf in a deceptive manner she does not expect the average voter to pick up on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Not "wrong"; I just didn't think it was necessary to drop a "sarcasm" smiley into that one.
I figured that anyone who couldn't pick up my tone of voice
in that post was unlikely to benefit from a more detailed,
matter-of-fact explanation of my feelings on the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I was just extending your argument... but a sarcasm smiley is always welcome!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. It's a personal hangup- As an artist, I have a STRONG dislike of the "sarcasm" smiley.
It's lame crap- a total waste of perfectly good HTML.

It's all wrong, symbolically. It doesn't say "sarcasm", it says
"kiddie cartoon bloodbath". :eyes:



Wrong COLOR, for starters; Red + dripping = BLOOD.
End of story, and the story was not about SARCASM.

I get that it's supposed to be "dripping", but it's dripping TOO MUCH.
Sarcasm is a CONTROLLED expression; a single drop would be more appropriate.

The word "sarcasm" in an icy blue, with a single drop dripping off-
now THAT would be a "sarcasm" smiley that actually said SARCASM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. I like your idea. It makes more sense than the current icon.
I almost never use icons. I am more into words as my form of expression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. I tend to prefer the tag
</sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Like this?



sorry, I don't have animated gif editor

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Yeah, now that actually kinda says "sarcasm" to me!
That seems much more appropriate for the task! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. now look at it
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:41 PM by frogcycle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
62. Sarcastic and animated! Nice job. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. I like that better.
Plus, powder blue is a sarcastic color. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. now look at it
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:41 PM by frogcycle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Perfect!
If I were you, I'd make an appeal to Skinner to put it on the DU smilies lookup table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. ok, so I went and found an editor n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. As a writer, I couldn't agree more. If you can't make your point without putting a nametag
on what you're doing, then you're not doing it well enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #28
56. except on discussion boards like this
where taking things literally and/or only reading half of it before responding is the norm

tastes great!
less filling!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. But cake is loaded with fats, corn syrup, everything that's said to be bad for us!
What next, she'll bitch and whine because everybody's obese?

She is out of touch, and she is a pandering little panda...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. eat cake--Hillary Antoinnette?
She is not the only one in Washington out of touch with the common person. But her implying the top 6% are middle class makes you wonder.
No, it removes all doubt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
18. Actually, I think that 6% are the only real people in Imperial Amerikas...to Hillary
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 06:20 AM by tom_paine
and the rest like her.

A very telling answer, of course, but it is merely a symptom of the sea change back to pre-American Revolution contempt for Filthy Little Nobodies by our aristocracy, as opposed to the belief in the Founding Fathers' vision of common decency and self-governance by Filthy Little Nobodies like us.

And yes, she was covertly addressing the only people she and Bushies very likely consider Real Human Beings, the tops 6%.

Actually the Bushies probably only consider the top 0.01% Real Human Beings, so actuall Hillary's mild contempt for only 94% of us looks pretty good compared to Bush Family contempt for the bottom 99.9% of the people they rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
19. May any candidate use that piece.
:thumbsup:

Especially when any American can get money out of it.

Or at least cut those who don't put money into it from getting at it. That's stealing, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
23. Seems like that view of things came straight from the Republican playbook 101. Sad
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:48 AM by IsItJustMe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. The decision to protect the top 6% taxpayers from a tax increase did come from Repubs
... and the application of the 'middle class' label to them is worthy of Rove certification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. DLC's playbook IS the Republican playbook
"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undis...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Sad indeed, that she chooses to spout such dishonest Repub crapaganda. Sad, but not unusual.
Which is sadder yet, IMO. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
33. He should keep up the heat on that issue.
It's a winner and it clearly shows where Hillary Clinton's allegiances are. To the upper middle and corporate classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
34. If Edwards had made that mistake Wolf, would have probably jumped for Joy
What is with him and the thing with Edwards....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Like I've heard around here
the media dogs are told to go after Edwards because Edwards has a chance to win the nomination and he would turn their world upside-down. Also, the media whore "journalists" make way more than $97,000. It is their tier of earners being questioned when someone points out the tax discrepencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
41. Hillary flapped her "avenging angel of the middle class" wings so loudly
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:35 PM by rocknation
she didn't really hear what Obama said. He was talking about income level, not class. It was a bad slip on her part, and it should have gotten more attention. By the way, Hil, if the cap were to be eliminated, the middle class could pay a LOWER rate!

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
45. Couple that with the shot of Hillary drinking champagne at the DNC in '04 to show up in an ad...
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 10:01 PM by 1932
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
47. how many times are you going to post this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
48. I am in that six percent and I would consider myself middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLDCVADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Same here... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Economic class isn't about how much you earn, but how you earn it.
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 11:25 PM by rocknation
John Gotti's salary probably placed him within the six per cent. But he wasn't a member of the upper middle class--he was a criminal.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
51. Where did the 6% stat come from?
I still haven't been able to find it. Thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaylee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
53. 6% IS middle class in the DC area....
I know I am one of them. $94,000 is peanuts in this very expensive area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. So why is minimum wage only $6.60 in DC?
That's a HUGE gap between "middle class" and poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madam Mossfern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. That's just it.
It all depends upon where you live. Our family household income is more than 100 Thousand, but but the property taxes on our house is more than 18,000. We still have two kids in college who are not qualified for financial aid because we make too much, and the cost of just about everything here is outrageous.

That being said, I have no problem with paying the tax - as a matter of fact I do because I personally make less than that. We do get hit with the alternative minimum tax though. I grew up in a family that didn't mind paying their share of taxed just as long as our money was wisely spent on things that warranted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. So Clinton can say anything regarding economic class and be correct?
Edited on Sun Nov-18-07 08:55 AM by Postman
She's a phony and Obama nailed her wealth-kissing ass on this one.

The cap on income for Social Security tax should be raised all the way to the top of the scale, with no cuts in benefits. IMO there should be an increase in benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. What's the difference between what you make and what the working poor
make in your area? Everyone can't claim to be middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC