Clinton is the one who used rightwing smears.

[geek tragedy]

Question: What does Hillary Clinton call a measure that asks the upper class to pay their fair share in Social Security taxes?

Answer: "A trillion dollar tax increase on the back of the middle class."

Did Clinton join the Club for Growth in the past few months?

[ClarkUSA]

1. It's the pro-business DLC position.

Same thing.

[daninthemoon]

2. She sure as hell did. I'm glad Obama came right back with that

wonderful little thing dems are known for: the truth.

[JohnnyBoots]

30. Then she fired back saying it was "mud slining." n/t

[blm]

3. Hillary sometimes jumps right in with the RW smearers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[AtomicKitten]

4. She really screwed the pooch on that.

It was a nod to the upper crust. Ugh.

[Sparkly]

5. Were they talking about the same numbers?

$97k and over? That's 6% of the population? I'd really need to see figures for all the numbers being used and wished that had been clarified in their discussion.

[dj49770]

6. Why

Why do you find that hard to believe?

[Sparkly]

Well, I just found this fwiw - wiki

"19.01% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000" (in 2006).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

I'd just like to see what numbers each of them were using. It's often the case that two people are correct in what they're saying because they're talking about different things.

[TheWraith]

13. That's for households, not individuals. NT

[Sparkly]

15. Oh!!!

Okay... What are the stats for $97k + individuals, AND the percentage of those who are "heads of households" or sole earners?

[TheWraith]

42. That I do not know. Anybody else? NT

[Texas_Kat]

7. Yeah I don't believe those numbers either.

I'll do some research on my own.

[geek tragedy]

11. How many individuals make $100K a year?

That's what they're talking about.

[Sparkly]

12. Are you sure both were speaking of that same income level?

Didn't Obama say it was 6%? That doesn't seem right.

[sandnsea]

19. Well it is

The HOUSEHOLD income of $97,000 is above 20%.

Top Five Percent HOUSEHOLD income is $174,000.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01ar.html

Most people do not make very much money. We have been lied to for years. We've given all the tax and business benefits to very few people.

[ruggerson]

8. If you take the cap off of those over 97K

should they then increase the top benefits?

Or do people have to pay more, but get no commensurate increase in benefits for what they contribute?

[geek tragedy]

9. Better that than old people starving. n/t

[ruggerson]

16. You didn't answer my question

[geek tragedy]

24. I think people making $250K should chip in

a little extra to help keep SS stable and secure.

[TheWraith]

14. If you're among the top wage earners, don't you owe a bit more to the country that made you rich? NT

[ruggerson]

20. I buy that

but is it fair for someone who makes 97K a year for his entire career to pull the same SS check at retirement as someone who makes 300K a year, when the 300k individual hypothetically would pay three times more into the system if we lift the cap but don't increase benefits?

[geek tragedy]

21. Two responses:

1. The person who makes $300K/year over his lifetime won't need Social Security.

2. You wouldn't have to tax it at the same rate--you could tax income above that point at a reduced rate.

[ruggerson]

29. I agree with you on point 2

I think it's fair to lift the cap and then have a gradual decline in the tax rate as the income increases.

[TheWraith]

40. No. But it's also not fair that some people make $20 million/yr while others can't pay for medicine.

If the price of making sure that working class retirees can eat, stay warm, and stay healthy is that the well off experience a slightly unfair distribution of benefits, I don't see a problem with that. If you're making $300k a year, you're highly unlikely to NEED Social Security anyway.

[daninthemoon]

10. Tell ya what's weird. The only debate thread I see on the greatest

page is about how inappropriate it was for Obama to point this out. Bizarre. Kick this one up, folks.
:kick:

on edit: OK, it's not the only one, but there aren't many.

[bvar22]

17. Hillary will protect the top 6%.

The rest of us will get a bipartisan commission that will solve the problem on the backs of the REAL Working Class.


Hillary would rather PLANT questions than answer them!

[sandnsea]

18. health care = tax credits

There were a lot of things in this debate that working people would reject if they heard it. The trouble is that the journalists don't relate to how shocking some of the economic answers really are so they never report it.

[flpoljunkie]

32. Tax credits--what Newt Gingrich and his ilk push and useless for those who cannot buy insurance to

receive a "tax credit."

[BootinUp]

22. The public has already been sold on a reversal

of the Bush tax cuts and more progressive policies in many areas. Why is Obama opening up this can of worms. I would like to fucking win in '08.

SS is a third rail. The only smart way to address it is in a bi-partisan way while we control the Presidency and the Congress. Taking specific positions on it in a primary for the Presidency is just stupid.

Read Krugman today.

[geek tragedy]

23. Why let the REPUBLICANS get their grubby

hands on it? Screw them. They'd want to cut benefits and help the rich.

[BootinUp]

26. It is Obama

who is lending credence to the "crisis" meme that the Repukes are pushing. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flpoljunkie]

27. SS will begin paying out more than it takes it in 2017, a problem that must be dealt with--

Krugman's shilling for Hillary, notwithstanding. Raising the cap, perhaps with a "donut hole" seems like a reasonable solution--certainly one worth considering. No Democrat is suggesting privatizing Social Security; that is soley a Republican dream.

[BootinUp]

28. Amazing, you are discrediting Krugman as a Hil Shill now?

Go get a clue please.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Krugman's preference for Hillary Clinton is not new and is readily apparent despite your insults.

[BootinUp]

33. Please show us

how Krugman has demonstrated his preference, in fact, shilling for, is the phrase you used.

Please back that up with more than one article that criticizes your candidate of preference for a mistake I suspect many democrats (not just Hillary supporters) would agree with Krugman on.

What ya got?

[flpoljunkie]

34. Read his columns. Try a simple search of the NYT's website.

[BootinUp]

36. I read them regularly

Basically you got nothing then? Krugman has never shown a preference for candidates, he has come out with positive articles on various candidates policies though.

[Major Hogwash]

41. I agree, but it won't matter in a few months.

Paul will have to find someone else to support for President after Iowa.

[flpoljunkie]

35. An insult, not a response.

[BootinUp]

37. It was a clear challenge to your charge against Krugman, you know

the one you are not supporting with anything like evidence.

[flpoljunkie]

38. Do you own research. I've read Krugman's columns and stand by my assertion.

[BootinUp]

39. Retract your unsupported charge!

Bwaahhhaaahaaa.

[mckeown1128]

25. Obama did a great job pointing it out!!!