Hillary Comes Right Out And Says It

[Confed999]

Hillary: We'll take your money for 'common good'
Senator speaks to wealthy taxpayers at San Francisco fund-raiser

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 29, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com



Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Addressing a Democratic fund-raiser yesterday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., told wealthy supporters the government will need to take money away from them for the "common good."

Traveling with her husband on his book tour, Clinton headlined an appearance with other women Democratic senators in San Francisco, where donors gave as much as $10,000 to California Sen. Barbara Boxer's campaign.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

More Here

[ChrisF202]

Sick just sick. I dare her to come and take my money. I hope the people riot, I really honestly hope they do.

[Confed999]

Chris you have to relax buddy. They will allways take your money, "inevitable as death and taxes". It's just nice to hear one come right out and say they're gonna take your money. I will never understand why anyone would vote for higher taxes though.

[turnagainarm]

Well right now the federal govt. is running a budget deficit of $500 billions (1/2 trillion ! can you believe that !!), not to mention about $7 trillion in national debt. So either you raise taxes to meet your budgetory requirement plus some extra to pay the national debt, or you have to drastically cut govt. programs to reduce spending. A balance should be struck somewhere in the middle, cut some programs, raise some taxes. Bush tax cut for the rich has backfired bigtime, burdening the country with mamoth $500 billion budget deficit and mounting national debt.

[Confed999]

Well right now the federal govt. is running a budget deficit of $500 billions (1/2 trillion ! can you believe that !!)

470 billion and declining, according to the Congressional Budget Office. http://www.cbo.gov/

or you have to drastically cut govt. programs to reduce spending.

BINGO! The government is there to protect an individual's rights, not to grant them. Begin desocializing today!

Bush tax cut for the rich has backfired bigtime

I'm not rich and I get more money in my paycheck. To the best of my knowledge everyone who pays federal tax gets something out of the cuts. My boss is rich and the tax cuts have increased our profit margin allowing us to expand the business without increasing costs to the consumer. The day the taxes go back up I have to start firing people, or pass the costs onto you. You realize the people making around $350K are paying 35%, is this even close to fair? What is the percentage of federal tax that you pay, less than 1% after your refund?

burdening the country with mamoth $500 billion budget deficit and mounting national debt.

Note that the current budget deficit is a lower percentage of our GDP than the deficit of the 80s.

[ChrisF202]

Chris you have to relax buddy. They will allways take your money, "inevitable as death and taxes". It's just nice to hear one come right out and say they're gonna take your money. I will never understand why anyone would vote for higher taxes though.

Yup, only the liberals vote for more taxes. How they could want such a thing baffles me. My liberal friend says he wouldent mind more taxes (as if we dont have enough already). But you have to admit, Hillary takes it to the extreme. Plus, I have an undying hatred for that lady as she is a theif, a lier and an all round dumba--. She stole the senate election from Rick Lazio with her lies.

[turnagainarm]

You realize the people making around $350K are paying 35%, is this even close to fair? What is the percentage of federal tax that you pay, less than 1% after your refund?

I believe in progressive taxation, so given the fact that sombody making $50-60K a year ends up having deducted a around 30% as federal and state withholding (not to mention the sales tax he will be paying on all the stuff he buys), I would say 35% deduction for an income of $350K actually sounds on the lower side, it should be at least 39-40%.

Note that the current budget deficit is a lower percentage of our GDP than the deficit of the 80s.

Yes Reagan voodoo economics gave us the huge national debt, and his Afghan policy gave birth to Taliban/AlQaeda.
We will be dealing with national debt and Taliban/AlQaeda for a long time to come.

[Confed999]

I believe in progressive taxation, so given the fact that sombody making $50-60K a year ends up having deducted a around 30% as federal and state withholding

State tax has nothing to do with this conversation as it has nothing to do with Federal budget deficits or national debt. BTW, my state has no state income tax and check out our economy, best in the states. $60K is 25% federal tax, and that's way too much too. Working 3 months out of the year for what? Plus higher taxes cause the rich people to move their money into untaxable investments and locations, example Kerry's wife, she paid about 10% of her income according to her tax return. Personally I consider wealth redistribution as criminal, in the least, or communism, and both of those suck. I also still bet you are paying little, if any, federal tax. People who pay tax want results for their money, and not some politician's idea of "the common good". If you go to a community college, get educated in something useful, you can easily move to a country that is allready socialist/communist. I even give you permission to not pay back your student loans, nobody does anyway, and it's just someone else's tax payments right?

Yes Reagan voodoo economics gave us the huge national debt

They gave us a bigger national debt, yes, but Reagan's economics didn't just include tax cuts. Also if you use the Reagan example then you have to note tax revenue nearly doubled in his 8 years, and that doesn't support your argument.

and his Afghan policy gave birth to Taliban/AlQaeda.

Actually the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan started it all. Liked the spin attempt though, good try. The only thing the free world did wrong after the Soviets withdrew, was to not help them more. Hopefully we will stay the course this time. BTW, neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda existed until years after America supported the Soviet's enemies.

[eMGee]

Actually the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan started it all. Liked the spin attempt though, good try. The only thing the free world did wrong after the Soviets withdrew, was to not help them more. Hopefully we will stay the course this time. BTW, neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda existed until years after America supported the Soviet's enemies.

You realize when you say this, Russians can claim the same about the USA and Vietnam?

[Confed999]

You realize when you say this, Russians can claim the same about the USA and Vietnam?

I have no idea what you're talking about actually. The French were in control of Vietnam when that one started. The US came in at the request of the Vietnamese government. The Soviets supported the communists that are still in charge, not a different group. Plus, I thought the Soviets kept ties with the communists after the war. I don't see the similarities, but that was before my time, Afghanistan happened while I watched.

[turnagainarm]

State tax has nothing to do with this conversation as it has nothing to do with Federal budget deficits or national debt. BTW, my state has no state income tax and check out our economy, best in the states. $60K is 25% federal tax, and that's way too much too. Working 3 months out of the year for what? Plus higher taxes cause the rich people to move their money into untaxable investments and locations, example Kerry's wife, she paid about 10% of her income according to her tax return. Personally I consider wealth redistribution as criminal, in the least, or communism, and both of those suck. I also still bet you are paying little, if any, federal tax. People who pay tax want results for their money, and not some politician's idea of "the common good". If you go to a community college, get educated in something useful, you can easily move to a country that is allready socialist/communist. I even give you permission to not pay back your student loans, nobody does anyway, and it's just someone else's tax payments right?

Like I said earlier, I believe in progressive taxation, so if somebody making $60K pays upto 25% in federal taxes then 35% on an income of $360K sounds a tad bit low, it should be about 39 - 40%.
I agree with you though that there are two many loopholes which allows the rich to use unscrupulus means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Thus believe it or not, coporations in US pay only about 15% in taxes whereas the average taxpayer pays upto 21%.

They gave us a bigger national debt, yes, but Reagan's economics didn't just include tax cuts. Also if you use the Reagan example then you have to note tax revenue nearly doubled in his 8 years, and that doesn't support your argument.

Did you know that Reagan raised taxed twice? After the tax cut of 1981, he icreased taxes in 1982, rolling back upto 1/3 of the taxcut of 1981. Then again in 1983 he raised payroll taxes. Thus the loower and middle income people were basically back to square one, these two tax increases put their income level pretty much back to where it was before the 1981 tax cut. Only the rich benifitted from Reagan tax cuts.

Another tidbits, Reagan 1981 tax increase was higher than Clinton's 1993 tax increase in terms of share of GDP.

Actually the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan started it all. Liked the spin attempt though, good try. The only thing the free world did wrong after the Soviets withdrew, was to not help them more. Hopefully we will stay the course this time. BTW, neither the Taliban nor al Qaeda existed until years after America supported the Soviet's enemies.

Soviets did not train the jehadis, US did. US spent billions of dollers in recruiting, indoctrinating,training and arming these jehadis during the 80's. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, these people went on to form Taliban and AlQaeda. Least you forget Osama used to be an stauch US ally during the 80's.

Before the Afghan war of 80's concept of global jihad was almost non-existent, it was US billions spent indoctrinating the jihadis to fight in Afghanistan that gave birth to radical Islamists and global jihad (PLO, HAMAS, and other Palestinian terror groups have never attacked anybody other than Israelis). In CIA terminology terrorism of today is the blowback of the faulty policies of 80's.

[Confed999]

Like I said earlier, I believe in progressive taxation,

Please explain why. I told you why I think it's wrong, but I haven't heard a reason for progressive taxation.

coporations in US pay only about 15% in taxes whereas the average taxpayer pays upto 21%.

Without the corporations there would be no jobs. 15% and 21% are too much too.

Did you know that Reagan raised taxed twice?

Actually, including tax bills on smokes and booze I think it was more like 6 big times. But, like I said Reagan doesn't really apply as tax cuts were not all he was into. I think I have you at a disadvantage, you think I'm a Republican, I'm not. Most Republicans aren't anywhere near politically conservative enough for me. ;)

Soviets did not train the jehadis, US did.

I allready told you when/why it went wrong. I don't agree with the policy, but I understand why they did it. We should have stayed to see it through, instead of leaving them to their own devices. Still, if the Soviets had not invaded, nobody would have been recruited at all, and that is the bottom line there.

[turnagainarm]

Please explain why. I told you why I think it's wrong, but I haven't heard a reason for progressive taxation.

My reason is simple. I believe people ought to pay according to their means. Somebody who has more should pay more, and somebody who has less should pay less.

Without the corporations there would be no jobs. 15% and 21% are too much too.

That is a gross misnomer. Majority of the jobs are actually provided by small businesses.

Actually, including tax bills on smokes and booze I think it was more like 6 big times. But, like I said Reagan doesn't really apply as tax cuts were not all he was into. I think I have you at a disadvantage, you think I'm a Republican, I'm not. Most Republicans aren't anywhere near politically conservative enough for me.

So you are one of those super ultra conservatives? I will try to remember that, when your arguments don't make sense to me, I will understand why!

I allready told you when/why it went wrong. I don't agree with the policy, but I understand why they did it. We should have stayed to see it through, instead of leaving them to their own devices. Still, if the Soviets had not invaded, nobody would have been recruited at all, and that is the bottom line there.

I don't see how you can blame the Soviets for faulty American policy? Did the Soviets twists US arms to adopt such a policy?
I would blame the Soviets for invading Afghanistan, and I would blame US for recruiting/indoctrinating the jehadis/terrorists, that's the way I see it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Confed999]

My reason is simple. I believe people ought to pay according to their means. Somebody who has more should pay more, and somebody who has less should pay less.

"All men are created equal". I believe people who use the government services the most, should pay the most tax.

That is a gross misnomer. Majority of the jobs are actually provided by small businesses.

Most small businesses are corporations, I work in one, and we work for dozens of others. A corporation can have 1 employee, if so desired. Kerry's proposed tax hikes will affect small business owners too, and I allready explained how.

So you are one of those super ultra conservatives? I will try to remember that, when your arguments don't make sense to me, I will understand why!

Political conservative yes, I believe the government is too big and has too much power now. Funny thing is, I understand all of your arguments, I just don't understand how you can hate the government on one hand and want to give them more power on the other.

I don't see how you can blame the Soviets for faulty American policy? Did the Soviets twists US arms to adopt such a policy?

Unless you're saying we shouldn't have fought the USSR, and judging by your political views that's the case, I don't see your point. Can't have effect without cause.

and I would blame US for recruiting/indoctrinating the jehadis/terrorists,

Except they were freedom fighters then, and "recruting/indoctrinating" freedom fighters is the job of the USA.

that's the way I see it. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Again, I don't agree with the part of the policy where we left afterwards, but I do support freedom from tyrants, like the USSR. I say if the US and it's other allies, supporting the rebellion against the Soviets, had stayed and helped them instead of leaving, it wouldn't be the way it is now. You can disagree if you wish, but I can't see your basis for that disbelief.