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.

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.

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.

NO MORE CLINTONS.. NO MORE BUSHES!!!

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.

... by lying to the AMerican people.

Clinton really put both feet in her mouth, didn't she? but all's okay, there are people covering for her blunders like this.

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.

... 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.

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.

nt

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?

...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.

I'm in Arlington Co and you are definitely right.

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.

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?

tax. Remember, this tax also pays for benefits to the disabled and to certain families in which a parent is deceased.

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.

Gak!...

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!

... 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.

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.

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!

I almost never use icons. I am more into words as my form of expression.

</sarcasm>

sorry, I don't have animated gif editor

That seems much more appropriate for the task! :thumbsup:

Plus, powder blue is a sarcastic color. :D

If I were you, I'd make an appeal to Skinner to put it on the DU smilies lookup table.

on what you're doing, then you're not doing it well enough.

where taking things literally and/or only reading half of it before responding is the norm

tastes great!
less filling!

What next, she'll bitch and whine because everybody's obese?

She is out of touch, and she is a pandering little panda...

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!

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.

: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?

... and the application of the 'middle class' label to them is worthy of Rove certification.

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

Which is sadder yet, IMO. :(

It's a winner and it clearly shows where Hillary Clinton's allegiances are. To the upper middle and corporate classes.

What is with him and the thing with Edwards....

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.

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

...

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

I still haven't been able to find it. Thanks in advance.

I know I am one of them. $94,000 is peanuts in this very expensive area.

That's a HUGE gap between "middle class" and poor.

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.

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.

make in your area? Everyone can't claim to be middle class.