HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Iím certainly again...

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:31 PM

 

"Iím certainly against one of Senator Obamaís ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax"

On increasing the payroll taxes (Social Security taxes) on people over $102,000 and under $250,000?

"CLINTON: I donít want to raise taxes on anybody.

Iím certainly against one of Senator Obamaís ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators, police officers, firefighters and the like."

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm


Stolen from JDPriestly's insightful OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Yes, all those teachers making over $102,000.

Out of touch, much, Senator???



48 replies, 4224 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 48 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Iím certainly against one of Senator Obamaís ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax" (Original post)
NYC_SKP Jan 2014 OP
elleng Jan 2014 #1
NYC_SKP Jan 2014 #5
elleng Jan 2014 #6
CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2014 #2
Scuba Jan 2014 #7
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #11
delrem Jan 2014 #14
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #19
delrem Jan 2014 #22
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #23
delrem Jan 2014 #27
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #38
madokie Jan 2014 #26
defacto7 Jan 2014 #30
madokie Jan 2014 #31
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #37
madokie Jan 2014 #39
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #41
madokie Jan 2014 #42
customerserviceguy Jan 2014 #44
Enthusiast Jan 2014 #17
frwrfpos Jan 2014 #21
magical thyme Jan 2014 #45
Fumesucker Jan 2014 #3
KoKo Jan 2014 #4
bluestateguy Jan 2014 #8
karynnj Jan 2014 #15
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2014 #25
LiberalElite Jan 2014 #9
JDPriestly Jan 2014 #10
rufus dog Jan 2014 #12
Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2014 #24
Cha Jan 2014 #13
hfojvt Jan 2014 #16
Enthusiast Jan 2014 #18
Whisp Jan 2014 #32
hughee99 Jan 2014 #20
magical thyme Jan 2014 #46
hughee99 Jan 2014 #47
AzDar Jan 2014 #28
LittleBlue Jan 2014 #29
Whisp Jan 2014 #33
LittleBlue Jan 2014 #34
bravenak Jan 2014 #35
anasv Jan 2014 #36
frwrfpos Jan 2014 #40
Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #43
Vattel Jan 2014 #48

Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:33 PM

1. Oh SKP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:42 PM

5. I know.

 

I've always favored the underdog and I find it as disturbing now as I did in 2007 that the machine is moving to determine the outcome of the primary.

Why? Not based on merit so much as who has power and influence.

I just don't think that's the democratic process I learned about in school.

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:46 PM

6. Darn right.

I supported Wes Clark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:35 PM

2. This is just one of her positions that I strongly disagree with.

I do not want her as President............of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:48 PM

7. +8,749

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 11:40 PM

11. If she finally decides to run

You're stuck. Neither the progressive left or the hateful right will be able to stop her in either the primaries or the general. She just fascinates too many people who don't bother to think about politics until the weekend before an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 12:47 AM

14. I don't think she'll win a GE. Primary yes, but a GE no. Just my opinion. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 26, 2014, 10:01 PM

19. Who have the Pukes got

to put up against her? There's no heir-apparent "it's my turn" kind of Rethuglican out there. Unless you count Gingrich or Santorum, and I think the former is way too beaten up to want to give it a try. The latter is just flat out unacceptable to the vast majority of the American people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 26, 2014, 10:14 PM

22. Gingrich and Santorum aren't the only possibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #22)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 01:14 AM

23. Ted Cruz? Rand Paul?

Give me a name or two of some GOP'er who could possibly beat Hillary in a general election, assuming that what we know about her today is just about all we will know about her by Election Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:30 AM

27. No. I just hope not all Dems are as complacent as you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 06:34 PM

38. Complacent?

Or taking a serious look at reality? On one hand, I don't see any strong Repukes that could possibly win in the general (Christie was polling well a couple of months ago, but he's in the toilet for the next three years at least) and on the other hand, I don't see any serious opposition forming to Hillary Clinton. I mean, who's going on the Sunday talking head shows, trying to set themselves up for a bit of name familiarity?

Forget Elizabeth Warren, she's backing Hillary, who would be wise to put her on the ticket in the VP slot. It would calm down a LOT of voters on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:19 AM

26. Big head jeb bush is their man

you can bet on that.
He's laying low for a reason. That reason is to sanitize his name, his resume. Voters have short memories and they, big head jeb people, are banking on that. Anyways my bet is whoever the dems settle on will go up against the third bush.

Republicons are shallow people

Remember I said it first

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:56 AM

30. and he's got the family connections....

very old, very powerful, very exclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:58 AM

31. He'll be hard to beat has he'll be seen...

Let me rephrase that he'll be marketed as more sane than older brother little boots. Pukes will eat it up too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 06:30 PM

37. He's got zero traction

with the tea partiers. His support of immigration reform drives them nuts, and besides, even they think there's been enough Bushes.

However, he could squeak in if he maintains McCain-Romney like numbers of 30-40% or so in the early primaries, and fundy/TP candidates divide up the vote. Of course, after SC, there would be an anybody-but-Jebbie candidate, and I think he'd give Bush a serious run for it like McCain and Romney never saw.

In any case, I cannot see Jeb Bush beating Hillary Clinton. Massive apathy might set in, given that the two families seem to be the double helix of American politics, and that's depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:29 PM

39. I believe that jebbie will wait until the last minute to throw his hat in the race but throw his hat

in he will and when he does the dynamics of this race will be turned on its head. The teabillies may not like him but you can bet they hate who ever we Dems have on our side way more than they hate big head jeb. The republicon party will coalesce around him so fast it will make heads spin. Whether we can win in the end is anyone's guess at this point. Lots of racist jackasses out there and they don't vote Democratic. Lots of assholes who also thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen and I will add they don't vote a Democratic ticket either.
You can bet on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 29, 2014, 08:15 AM

41. I've heard the concept

of "they hate our guy worse than they hate any GOP'er", and that didn't work the last two elections, either. Are you telling me that they find Hillary scarier than they did a black man?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 29, 2014, 08:42 AM

42. From the ones I know the answer is Yes

Hillary has a lot of people, or I should say republicons scared that she'll take their guns. I like Hillary but if she's our candidate it will be one tough election. IMO
Guns is one of the biggest wedge issues the republicons win elections with. A lot of otherwise good people get real jittery when you start talking about restricting their guns, some Dems too. I would have liked to see Hillary be our first woman President and maybe she will be but with the volatile system we have now I don't think she can win.
You can bet your bippy that I'll be voting for whoever our nominee is. I'm 100% Democratic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madokie (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:13 AM

44. They're scared of any Democratic candidate

on that issue. Barack Obama has actually spoken out on gun control. But he's been completely ineffective at passing any legislation in that direction. They probably think Hillary will get the same result if she tries the same thing.

What we need is to focus on electing a Congress that will be to the left of whoever the next President is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 08:20 AM

17. Me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 26, 2014, 10:12 PM

21. absolutely +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:18 AM

45. agreed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:36 PM

3. Say goodnight Dick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:40 PM

4. Agree! Thanks!...but...ohhhh...you are bad.....



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:51 PM

8. It's not an idea that Obama ever bothered to advance


I do know of some cops who made that much by working overtime in higher pay states like NY or NJ.

Hardly any teachers make that much, but some tenured college professors do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 01:05 AM

15. Consider that everyone pays this tax starting at the first dollar earned.

If a teacher or a cop, in some high income area has to pay these taxes on a higher proportion of their income, is that more of a burden on them or on someone making minimum wage and paying for every dollar they earn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:05 AM

25. Not true. Many proposals were bandied about in the Senate; it's just that with everything else that

 

was happening at the time, the media never paid much attention to that debate. But there were several proposals on raising the cap. And if you remember, where did the most blowback come from? Not Republicans. From Democrats!! Yes, Democrats from wealthy states. Someone mentioned down thread the "donut hole" proposal. I remember that debate clearly. And again, it was really several Democrats from wealthy blue states, like Schumer, who kept trying to move the ball, raise the income ceiling.

And as I said, with all the other debates going on at that time, including the disastrous midterm election, the SS reform discussions were largely ignored by the media. You had to really be paying attention to know and understand what was going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:52 PM

9. This would make a great button n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 11:36 PM

10. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Fri Jan 24, 2014, 11:44 PM

12. And there is a very obvious solution to the problem she brought up

 

Create a donut hole. Don't want to tax well paid working class, fine, exempt 100k to 250k, then tax again over 250k. Not that complicated if that is the group she is truly concerned about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rufus dog (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:01 AM

24. Obama flirted with the donut whole idea and remember what happened? The Blue Dogs in the Senate

 

said no!! Remember how they kept raising the ceiling? It was basically those from wealthier states like Schumer and Feinstein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 12:28 AM

13. Oh dear.. that doesn't make sense.

Yikes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 03:29 AM

16. to be fair

she said that a long time ago.

Although I really saw it as a KEY to why I do NOT support her. She jumped right in there - to fight other Democrats, on behalf of people who make more than $98,000 a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sat Jan 25, 2014, 08:30 AM

18. Make no mistake, this reveals Hillary's true feelings on we "lesser people".

The FICA cap has always been lifted. Hillary's position is not centrist, it is right of center.

Hillary doesn't represent our interests, she simply does not.

I know some sockpuppet will pop up to quote her approval rating among "liberals and progressives". But that doesn't change the fact that she is a poor choice considering the challenges that face us.

We do not want more, deregulation, trade deals, tax cuts and wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enthusiast (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 03:05 AM

32. It appears we have our own version of Ann Romney: we are the 'you people'

 

to the Clintons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Jan 26, 2014, 10:10 PM

20. Normally I'm about the last person to defend Clinton, but

the AVERAGE teacher salary in her county (Westchester County, NY) is $88,000, so where she lives I'll bet there are a bunch of teachers making over $102K

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/local/2013/10/06/more-ny-educator-salaries-top-100000-/2933899/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 08:22 AM

46. she didn't always live in NY

 

and she knows perfectly well how much teachers make outside of Westchester County, NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 12:45 PM

47. If she knows perfectly well how much teachers make,

then it's hard to argue that she's out of touch as the OP does. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of hers but she does happen to live in one of the few places were she can claim to know a bunch of teachers making that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:33 AM

28. K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 02:39 AM

29. When one spends their life hobnobbing with Goldman and Walmart executives

 

you can see how she confused incomes over 100k as middle class.

She will be our party's version of Margaret Thatcher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #29)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 03:07 AM

33. Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady

 

And all this talk about Hillary and her 'toughness' (which is bullshit, toughness isn't just blurting out shit without thinking first), yep, I get that same picture. A vomitous one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 03:33 AM

34. Yep. The American media love Maggie Thatcher

 

There will be intense pressure for her to intervene militarily or get the "weak woman" tag by the Rethugs and their media pets (David Gregory et al). Look at how the media pressured Obama on Syria, imagine the baying for blood we'll get with Hillary.

It's a massive trap for her and for the party. Does she have the will to resist? The biggest question is whether she desires conflict herself.

And that's completely aside to her elitist economic and tax policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 03:47 AM

35. Damnit!

 

I didn't know this about her. I'm disappointed. Such bullshit, I've never met a rich teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Mon Jan 27, 2014, 05:44 AM

36. I'm still hoping, Biden 2016

 

I just will not vote for Hillary. She's flamingly incompetent and rightist.

I'm sick to death of the lesser of two evils argument, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Tue Jan 28, 2014, 07:34 PM

40. hillary is the face of the third way

 

she can walk over to the other side of the aisle where she belongs rec too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Wed Jan 29, 2014, 09:24 AM

43. And when did the cap get raised?

 

Obama at that time also said the individual mandate was theft and he'd never approve of any bill without a strong public option. Like 'raise the cap' his rhetoric vanished into hers once he won. Saying one is for something then not pursuing it is no different than simply saying you will not pursue it. Well, it's far more honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Thu Jan 30, 2014, 01:08 PM

48. I love how Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000 meant only that

 

he was "willing to look at" not raising the payroll tax of those earning "slightly above" $100,000. Classic Obama.

Q: Would you take a pledge of no tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes.

CLINTON: I donít want to raise taxes on anybody. Iím certainly against one of Senator Obamaís ideas, which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on people who are educators, police officers, firefighters and the like.

OBAMA: What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires donít have to pay beyond $97,000 a year. Now most firefighters & teachers, theyíre not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6% of the population does. And Iíve also said that Iíd be willing to look at exempting people who are making slightly above that.

Q: But thatís a tax on people under $250,000.

OBAMA: Thatís why I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread