Clinton vows to raise taxes for the Middle class as her brain dead supporters cheer. (video)
community » Discussions » Category » News & Politics » Discussion » Clinton vows to raise taxes for the Middle class as her brain dead supporters cheer. (video)
The video has been voice analyzed and the story debunked. The Trump campaign has continued to repeat the lie and so do willingly-duped sycophants.
Clinton has repeatedly and consistently stated she will NOT raise taxes on the middle class.
This kind of crap is why TRUMP is the Republican candidate; it will be poetic justice when the outcome of the November elections results in the de facto crumbling of the Republican Party as we know it. He has wittingly or otherwise pulled back the curtain on the devolved party which over the years, has become bigoted, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, systemically dishonest, fear-mongering, obstructionistic, panderers-to-the-zeal-without-knowledge, the wealthy, religionists, the poorly-educated and the malcontents.
Further, unless Paul Ryan finally and at last denounces Trump and stops equivocating, he will never be POTUS.
What goes around comes around.
Trump Campaign Circulates Misleading Video Claiming Clinton Promised To Raise Taxes On Middle Class
Just before the clip that Trump pulled out, Clinton was talking about the “loopholes and special breaks” in the tax code that benefit the rich and worsen income inequality. She brought up the so-called “Buffett rule,” which she says means a wealthy man like Warren Buffett shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. She also promised to tax the wealthy more and use the money to invest in her priorities.
No matter what she may have said at the event in Omaha, Nebraska earlier this week, Clinton has consistently promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. She has pledged that those who make less than $250,000 won’t see a tax increase over and over and over again.
Funny, I heard after it was analyzed they started saying she misspoke (accidentally told the truth) because she said EXACTLY "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class"
"Given the context of her statement and the audience's positive reaction to it, it appears that Clinton actually said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," but either she didn't fully enunciate the ending of the word "aren't" or the word didn't come through clearly on the audio recording (or both). Worst case, she simply misspoke and said "are" when she meant "aren't," because she has not announced any changes to her tax platform or said on any other occasion that she plans to raise taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy."
" She has pledged that those who make less than $250,000 won’t see a tax increase over and over and over again."
Mmmmm Hmmm and BO pledged over and over again he would get rid of the patriot act and that "you can keep your doctor" and "it's not a tax"
Yea, Like I said before, she accidentally told the truth.
Funny, I heard after it was analyzed they started saying she misspoke (accidentally told the truth) because she said EXACTLY "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class"
You keep insisting the video was analyzed differently than in the link I provided. Where are you getting your sources? Care to provide one?
"Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "
Phonetic analysis says otherwise
"Wait, what?" was the reaction of the Clinton campaign too. Spokesman Josh Schwerin told us Clinton actually said the exact opposite.
He pointed to numerous reporters who agreed and forwarded us a transcript of Clinton’s prepared remarks that reads, "We aren’t going to raise taxes on the middle class."
It’s a classic case of she-heard-he-heard, so we asked experts to arbitrate. They agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Get ready for some science.
Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics.
By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."
Here’s a screenshot of the results:
As you can see, the phoneme (unit of sound) highlighted in pink is an "n," though there’s not a "t." That still suggests she was trying for the word "aren’t."
"It is pretty common for people to not release the final ‘t in word-final -nt clusters and is definitely not likely for someone to release the ‘t’in a three-consonant sequence like ‘ntg’ in ‘aren't going,’" Yu told us. "In any case, since she did pronounce the ‘n’ in ‘aren't’, it is clear that she produced the negated form of the copula ‘are.’"
Edward Flemming, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also ran the audio through Praat and came up with the same results. But even if we didn’t have Praat, he said, context alone sways the argument in the Clinton camp’s favor.
"Also if she was going to say ‘we are going to’, wouldn’t she contract it to ‘we’re’, as she does a few words earlier?" Flemming pointed out. "To my ears, it is clear that she is saying ‘aren’t’."
Clinton’s tax plan, by the way, does not change the tax rates for the middle class and instead targets the wealthy through small reforms.
Come on guys this is really, "Last Gasp" , kind of stuff.
Sure it looks like the Nation is starting to wake from it's long fever dream, but it's still just early August.
If the polls are showing that the sane part of the American Electorate is still this far ahead in mid September, October, then I could completely understand why you would be rolling out this " Baghdad Bob " kind of crap.
Trying to build up this kind of "alternate reality" thing so early is just weird and kind of pitiful.
It’s a classic case of she-heard-he-heard, so we asked experts to arbitrate. They agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Get ready for some science. Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics. By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."
Donald Trump wrongly says Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class | PolitiFact That's in addition to the fact that in context, she had just specifically said that she was going to have a tax plan that was fair to the middle class, as well as the fact that in almost all of her speeches, she specifically says she's not going to raise taxes on the middle class. Poor pathetic Donnie. He's getting killed with the ads that simply play his own words in his own voice, so he resorts to lying about what Hillary says. Pants of Fire, like the vast majority of what he says. Read more:
And this is a great example of why Trump is getting his political (metaphorical) ass handed to him; Among die hard conservatives and Tea Party types, are those who will beat a dead horse rather than mount substantive reasons for the political choices they make.
Scapegoats, stereotypes, demagoguery … sometimes it's hard to know if some of you are serious about the things you post, if you just post to be annoying … relentless pain-in-the-ass posts, or if you're just inarticulate, simplistic, zeal-without-knowledge, low-information voters who don't pat attention to anything that will force actual thinking.
EVEN IF CLINTON ACCIDENTALLY SAID "ARE" INSTEAD OF "AREN'T," big f'n deal … anyone who watched the speech in full, watched her other speeches and/or know what she's repeatedly stated with regard to taxes and the middle class, knows the score.
Just the way some of you ignore the content and context of many of my comments, or, rather, avoid substantive responses because you haven't any, and instead go to the pickiest crap … that's what you've done here.
You're losing, you're in denial, you're f'n annoying, often adolescent or childish.
Communicate like adults … come after me with reason and well-considered commentary.
I still maintain she slipped and told the truth. I believe time will tell. If elected and after she raises taxes on the middle class I will be sure to remind and (in a friendly way) ridicule you for being so blind you didn't believe Hillary the only time she told the truth.
I believe time will tell. If elected and after she raises taxes on the middle class I will be sure to remind and (in a friendly way) ridicule you for being so blind you didn't believe Hillary the only time she told the truth.
And if elected and she doesn't, will you be just as sure to remind us, and ridicule yourself for this comment.
And the business about "the ONLY time she told the truth," that's exactly what I'm talking about when I repudiate right-wing sycophants for believing their own hyperbole and propaganda.
It may be comforting now, but significant members of your own party are doing what intelligent people do … they consider the pros and cons, allow themselves to accept that there is no perfect candidate and they deal with what's real.
Liberal that I am, had John Kasich been the Republican nominee against Clinton, I likely would have voted for him; had Biden been the Democrat, I definitely would have voted for him. I believe that elections like this one come down to what I call "ELECTORATE WISDOM."
For the record, I personally believe that "WISDOM" begins at the moment when an individual ceases to believe his own bullshit.
Peace, 96. We rarely if ever agree politicly, but I think you're a good person.
If she is elected and doesn't raise taxes on the middle class I will admit my wrong, but let's be realistic. Slim to no chance I will have to admit I an wrong. I am willing to put cash on it, are you?
Let's be clear, there are lots of ways to raise taxes other than income and I predict she will raise them every way she can except income and the only reason she won't raise taxes on that is so she can convince the truly ignorant that she kept her word.
If she is elected and doesn't raise taxes on the middle class I will admit my wrong, but let's be realistic. Slim to no chance I will have to admit I an wrong. I am willing to put cash on it, are you?
Yup! $25 for the American Cancer Society!
Question: What if her tax plan, in fact, has a zero tax increase or tax cut on middle class incomes (depending on the State, $75,000 to $150,000) and Congress says "no deal"? To be clear, we're talking about what she does or does not propose … agreed?
Let's be clear, there are lots of ways to raise taxes other than income and I predict she will raise them every way she can except income and the only reason she won't raise taxes on that is so she can convince the truly ignorant that she kept her word.
Now you're equivocating; But go ahead and stipulate … which "federal" taxes are you including? She's clearly talking about Federal Income Tax.
The bet is on if we can base it on specifics, otherwise, too much wiggle room.
Basically, I'll agree to the "ordinary income" category; if a middle class individual has a good year with Capital Gains and Dividends, it's not because he/she is a middle class individual, etc. .
Table 1. Tax Brackets under Hillary Clinton’s Tax Plan
Ordinary Income
Capital Gains and Dividends
Single Filers
Married Filers
Head of Household
10%
0%
$0 to $9,275
$0 to $18,550
$0 to $13,250
15%
0%
$9,275 to $37,650
$18,550 to $75,300
$13,250 to $50,400
25%
15%
$37,650 to $91,150
$75,300 to $151,900
$50,400 to $130,150
28%
15%
$91,150 to $190,150
$151,900 to $231,450
$130,150 to $210,800
33%
15%
$190,150 to $413,350
$231,450 to $413,350
$210,800 to $413,350
35%
15%
$413,350 to $415,050
$413,350 to $466,950
$413,350 to $441,000
39.6%
20%
$415,050 to $5 million
$466,950 to $5 million
$441,000 to $5 million
43.6%
24%
$5 million and above
$5 million and above
$5 million and above
Here are the biggest changes Clinton has proposed so far to individual income taxes:
Enact a 4 percent surcharge on taxable income above $5 million a year.
Enact the “Buffet Rule,” a 30 percent minimum tax on those with taxable income above $1 million.
Limit the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent for taxpayers in higher tax brackets.
Amend the schedule for capital gains rates: Assets held less than two years would be taxed as short-term gain at ordinary income tax rates; assets held six or more years would be taxed at 23.8 percent.
Prevent people with high balances in tax-deferred and tax-free retirement accounts from making additional contributions.
Tax so-called “carried interest” — which are profits from investments held for more than a year — at ordinary income tax rates, rather than at the lower capital gains rate.
I think saying a capital gains tax is off bounds is ridiculous. I am middle class and have capital gains and you probably do too. Even though capital gains taxes affect the middle class I will not take them into consideration.
"Question: What if her tax plan, in fact, has a zero tax increase or tax cut on middle class incomes (depending on the State, $75,000 to $150,000) and Congress says "no deal"? To be clear, we're talking about what she does or does not propose … agreed?"
LMAO! Nice try but NO FLIPPING WAY!!
Only if taxes go up as result of a republican majority.
I EXPECT the DEMOCRATS in congress to shut down EVERY zero tax increase so that Hillary can say she TRIED to make good on her claim and keep the idiot supporters happy... and if they do and taxes go up, then I win.
One other problem. We need to agree on "middle class". President Barack Obama talks of "middle class tax cuts" that would apply to families who earn up to $250,000, which would cover all but the top 3 percent of U.S. households. I think it is only fair we keep up to $250,000 per FAMILY as middle class. Unless you think he has already done enough damage to downgrade the middle class by $100,000.00 per year, per family, of course.
So to be clear, we will keep the bet to "ordinary tax" only, but if it is raised by anything other than a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY then YOU LOSE, and middle class will be as defined by our current president as families that earn up to $250,000.00 per year. Agreed?
I EXPECT the DEMOCRATS in congress to shut down EVERY zero tax increase so that Hillary can say she TRIED to make good on her claim and keep the idiot supporters happy... and if they do and taxes go up, then I win.
Why would democrats vote against a plan with a zero tax increase on the middle class? Republicans would do that if it was part of a plan that raised taxes on the wealthy. They'll vote against any tax increases … just as political as democrats.
One other problem. We need to agree on "middle class". President Barack Obama talks of "middle class tax cuts" that would apply to families who earn up to $250,000, which would cover all but the top 3 percent of U.S. households. I think it is only fair we keep up to $250,000 per FAMILY as middle class. Unless you think he has already done enough damage to downgrade the middle class by $100,000.00 per year, per family, of course.
I'll post the state-by-state chart as to what is considered "middle class" income if you like. It's nowhere near $250,000 for any state.
So to be clear, we will keep the bet to "ordinary tax" only, but if it is raised by anything other than a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY then YOU LOSE, and middle class will be as defined by our current president as families that earn up to $250,000.00 per year. Agreed?
No; too many variables; I do understand your point. If a tax bill were solely up to the POTUS, we could make this unequivocal … but politicians on both sides will decide the outcome. I don't doubt that any POTUS would say, "I'll do 'X' if elected," knowing full well that "X" would be the proposal with your correctly posited built in way to claim, "Hey, I tried but got sabotaged."
I'm sure we'll find something more "black and white" to bet on.
OK I didn't think you were really crazy enough to bet on a politician telling the truth especially when that politician is Hillary. Those are some terrible odds my friend LOL!
OK I didn't think you were really crazy enough to bet on a politician telling the truth especially when that politician is Hillary. Those are some terrible odds my friend LOL!
There is no argument disputing the serious shortcomings of our political system.
But your doubt in Clinton's tax objective is not grounded in her, as the individual who vows to do what she promises, nor in the promise itself; your skepticism is in the system that will subvert such an objective for reasons of self-serving political advantage.
That's why we have no way to wager the outcome; the outcome is subject to a number of factors and those factors are, in part to cause failure and then blame the failure on everything but those who foreordained it!
Analogously, if I give you my word that I will not park my car in the space in front of your house, but you, or a member of your family parks his car in front of my house, in my parking space -- leaving me no choice but to park in the one in front of your house, that, or park a block away -- it does not mean my intention was bogus.
Point being, my intention was honorable and would have been fulfilled had it not been undermined.
Were you to accuse me of "all along, counting on extenuating circumstances that would allow me to make a pledge but not keep it, that, while taking credit for trying to do a good thing," you'd either have to be a mind reader, or, more likely know that your "family member" would set me up to fail.
And if we had a wager on whether or not I could make good on the parking space and you were counting on some set up to win the bet, my actions or intentions would not be responsible for the outcome, your (Republican) family would.
What's broken in our establishment is the self-serving use of sabotage of good legislation by one party to make the other look bad. And to summarily try to destroy that establishment by putting up anti-establishment candidates who pander to anger rather than reason, delays forever the ability of that establishment to govern.
That's the set up under which we have been living; and it's your party not mine that has brought us here. And Trump has pulled back the curtain to show us that reality.
The parking space analogy is not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. From Reagan to Limbaugh to McConnell and in between, from Gingrich's "Contract ON America" and the oligarchical hammering of the poor and middle class by your party, the failure of fairness to prevail is by design.
And it looks like maybe the pigeons are coming home to roost; I whole heartedly agree that the establishment needs fixing, but the blanket indictment strategy by your party has broken more middle class things than mine and has done much to prevent fixing what it has broken.
Yeah, they all lie, but demagoguery taken to the extreme is not going to fix what's broken … and demagoguery to the extreme is both the Republican strategy, especially over the past eight years … AND NOW YOU HAVE A POTUS CANDIDATE WHO IRONICALLY WARRANTS BEING DEMAGOGUED TO THE EXTREME!
What I am trying to understand is why there is a 10% tax rate for persons earning less than $10,000 per year. What is subsistence level? Is it not greater than $10,000 per year? Why are such persons required to even file tax returns unless the tax return has a specific category to check off if earnings are less than $10,000, not requiring other items to be completed, being a very simplistic category so that they are not forced to pay someone to complete their returns?
In other words making the tax return sufficiently complicated so that the poor will have to hire help to complete it.
This conjures up the picture in my mind of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) in Shawshank Redemption filling out the tax returns of all the prison guards and warden for free, but then I think everyone knows I'm a classic movie fan. LOL
When getting my hearing tested the doctor said it was amazing how well I could hear considering how bad my hearing was. I didn't tell him, but I knew why that was so. After playing music so much with other people you really learn how to listen, because without listening to what everyone else is doing, the music just doesn't get it and the group ends up sounding really crappy.
I heard her say "aren't" instead of "are", but I realize anything Hillary Clinton says doesn't make any difference anyway. She tells each group of people she is speaking to what she thinks they want to hear and that can be verified and has been verified numerous times.
One thing for sure is you can't fundamentally transform the United States without eliminating the middle class. The middle class has been decreasing and it will continue to decrease once she becomes President. It won't affect her since she has the monster foundation which will provide for the Clintons forever, kind of like the Kennedy Foundation. Any really big income or expenses will be run through the foundation. It wouldn't surprise me if all of their assests aren't owned by the foundation at this time. It would be a little stupid not to do this.
It's the way it is. She is the biggest recipient of money from Wall Street receiving more money and support than all the other candidates combined. She can say she is going to do something and maybe she will. If she wants it to go forward, she will do it when she knows it will go forward. If she really doesn't want it to go forward she will attempt to accomplish it when she knows it has no chance of going forward. It's a win win situation either way. She gets to brag on how she tried. The dumb down Americans will cheer her for trying so hard either way.
She is going to Federalized the law enforcement in this country if she can and she will be able to do so if enough collective Democrats are put into power. Then when one of her voting blocks complains about not getting promoted, she will do just like Obama and the Feds will come in and straighten it out for them.
I wonder if it is going to be an outright Fascist or an Oligarch government. I know the leadership of both parties are on the same side, so what is it called when both parties rule over the people?
I just had a thought, that since sensationalism is what the mainstream media wants in order to sell more advertising to increase their revenue and CEO income, they would WANT Trump to become President. Think of the horrors that would occur if he were the one, enabling lots of sensational headlines and stories, perhaps even daily.
NO THIS VIDEO WAS NOT EDITED. She just accidentally told the truth.
Yep. Watched that. It's the only way the dems can fund their expanding government control.
The video has been voice analyzed and the story debunked. The Trump campaign has continued to repeat the lie and so do willingly-duped sycophants.
Clinton has repeatedly and consistently stated she will NOT raise taxes on the middle class.
This kind of crap is why TRUMP is the Republican candidate; it will be poetic justice when the outcome of the November elections results in the de facto crumbling of the Republican Party as we know it. He has wittingly or otherwise pulled back the curtain on the devolved party which over the years, has become bigoted, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, systemically dishonest, fear-mongering, obstructionistic, panderers-to-the-zeal-without-knowledge, the wealthy, religionists, the poorly-educated and the malcontents.
Further, unless Paul Ryan finally and at last denounces Trump and stops equivocating, he will never be POTUS.
What goes around comes around.
Trump Campaign Circulates Misleading Video Claiming Clinton Promised To Raise Taxes On Middle Class
Just before the clip that Trump pulled out, Clinton was talking about the “loopholes and special breaks” in the tax code that benefit the rich and worsen income inequality. She brought up the so-called “Buffett rule,” which she says means a wealthy man like Warren Buffett shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. She also promised to tax the wealthy more and use the money to invest in her priorities.
No matter what she may have said at the event in Omaha, Nebraska earlier this week, Clinton has consistently promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. She has pledged that those who make less than $250,000 won’t see a tax increase over and over and over again.
Funny, I heard after it was analyzed they started saying she misspoke (accidentally told the truth) because she said EXACTLY "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class"
"Given the context of her statement and the audience's positive reaction to it, it appears that Clinton actually said "we aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," but either she didn't fully enunciate the ending of the word "aren't" or the word didn't come through clearly on the audio recording (or both). Worst case, she simply misspoke and said "are" when she meant "aren't," because she has not announced any changes to her tax platform or said on any other occasion that she plans to raise taxes on the middle class and not the wealthy."
" She has pledged that those who make less than $250,000 won’t see a tax increase over and over and over again."
Mmmmm Hmmm and BO pledged over and over again he would get rid of the patriot act and that "you can keep your doctor" and "it's not a tax"
Yea, Like I said before, she accidentally told the truth.
Funny, I heard after it was analyzed they started saying she misspoke (accidentally told the truth) because she said EXACTLY "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class"
You keep insisting the video was analyzed differently than in the link I provided. Where are you getting your sources? Care to provide one?
— PolitiFact National on Friday, August 5th, 2016
Donald Trump;
"Hillary Clinton says she wants to, ‘raise taxes on the middle class.’ "
Phonetic analysis says otherwise
"Wait, what?" was the reaction of the Clinton campaign too. Spokesman Josh Schwerin told us Clinton actually said the exact opposite.
He pointed to numerous reporters who agreed and forwarded us a transcript of Clinton’s prepared remarks that reads, "We aren’t going to raise taxes on the middle class."
It’s a classic case of she-heard-he-heard, so we asked experts to arbitrate. They agreed with the Clinton camp and offered some technical evidence to prove it. Get ready for some science.
Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics.
By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."
Here’s a screenshot of the results:
As you can see, the phoneme (unit of sound) highlighted in pink is an "n," though there’s not a "t." That still suggests she was trying for the word "aren’t."
"It is pretty common for people to not release the final ‘t in word-final -nt clusters and is definitely not likely for someone to release the ‘t’in a three-consonant sequence like ‘ntg’ in ‘aren't going,’" Yu told us. "In any case, since she did pronounce the ‘n’ in ‘aren't’, it is clear that she produced the negated form of the copula ‘are.’"
Edward Flemming, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also ran the audio through Praat and came up with the same results. But even if we didn’t have Praat, he said, context alone sways the argument in the Clinton camp’s favor.
"Also if she was going to say ‘we are going to’, wouldn’t she contract it to ‘we’re’, as she does a few words earlier?" Flemming pointed out. "To my ears, it is clear that she is saying ‘aren’t’."
Clinton’s tax plan, by the way, does not change the tax rates for the middle class and instead targets the wealthy through small reforms.
Clinton vows to riase taxes for the Middle class
Come on guys this is really, "Last Gasp" , kind of stuff.
Sure it looks like the Nation is starting to wake from it's long fever dream, but it's still just early August.
If the polls are showing that the sane part of the American Electorate is still this far ahead in mid September, October, then I could completely understand why you would be rolling out this " Baghdad Bob " kind of crap.
Trying to build up this kind of "alternate reality" thing so early is just weird and kind of pitiful.
RealClearPolitics
Polling Data
Poll
Date
Clinton (D)
Trump (R)
Johnson (L)
Stein (G)
Spread
RCP Average
7/29 - 8/7
--
--
43.8
36.3
8.6
4.0
Clinton +7.5
Washington Post Poll taken August 1 – 4 2016
Q: Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton ?
Favorable 48%
Unfavorable 50%
Q: Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Donald Trump ?
Favorable 34%
Unfavorable 63%
Q: Regardless of whether or not you'd vote for her, do you think Hillary Clinton is or is not qualified to serve as president?
Is qualified 60%
Is NOT qualified 38%
Q: Regardless of whether or not you'd vote for him, do you think Donald Trump is or is not qualified to serve as president?
Is qualified 38%
Is NOT qualified 61%
Alan Yu, a linguistics professor at the University of Chicago who specializes in phonology, ran the audio through a computer program called Praat, which analyzes phonetics.
By analyzing the sound waves, we can see that Clinton was saying "aren’t," because she definitely pronounced the "n," though she didn’t really hit the "t."
Donald Trump wrongly says Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class | PolitiFact
That's in addition to the fact that in context, she had just specifically said that she was going to have a tax plan that was fair to the middle class, as well as the fact that in almost all of her speeches, she specifically says she's not going to raise taxes on the middle class.
Poor pathetic Donnie. He's getting killed with the ads that simply play his own words in his own voice, so he resorts to lying about what Hillary says.
Pants of Fire, like the vast majority of what he says.
Read more:
And this is a great example of why Trump is getting his political (metaphorical) ass handed to him; Among die hard conservatives and Tea Party types, are those who will beat a dead horse rather than mount substantive reasons for the political choices they make.
Scapegoats, stereotypes, demagoguery … sometimes it's hard to know if some of you are serious about the things you post, if you just post to be annoying … relentless pain-in-the-ass posts, or if you're just inarticulate, simplistic, zeal-without-knowledge, low-information voters who don't pat attention to anything that will force actual thinking.
EVEN IF CLINTON ACCIDENTALLY SAID "ARE" INSTEAD OF "AREN'T," big f'n deal … anyone who watched the speech in full, watched her other speeches and/or know what she's repeatedly stated with regard to taxes and the middle class, knows the score.
Just the way some of you ignore the content and context of many of my comments, or, rather, avoid substantive responses because you haven't any, and instead go to the pickiest crap … that's what you've done here.
You're losing, you're in denial, you're f'n annoying, often adolescent or childish.
Communicate like adults … come after me with reason and well-considered commentary.
Other than that … see ya'.
I still maintain she slipped and told the truth. I believe time will tell. If elected and after she raises taxes on the middle class I will be sure to remind and (in a friendly way) ridicule you for being so blind you didn't believe Hillary the only time she told the truth.
I still maintain she slipped and told the truth.
It's called "wishful thinking, 96.
I believe time will tell. If elected and after she raises taxes on the middle class I will be sure to remind and (in a friendly way) ridicule you for being so blind you didn't believe Hillary the only time she told the truth.
And if elected and she doesn't, will you be just as sure to remind us, and ridicule yourself for this comment.
And the business about "the ONLY time she told the truth," that's exactly what I'm talking about when I repudiate right-wing sycophants for believing their own hyperbole and propaganda.
It may be comforting now, but significant members of your own party are doing what intelligent people do … they consider the pros and cons, allow themselves to accept that there is no perfect candidate and they deal with what's real.
Liberal that I am, had John Kasich been the Republican nominee against Clinton, I likely would have voted for him; had Biden been the Democrat, I definitely would have voted for him. I believe that elections like this one come down to what I call "ELECTORATE WISDOM."
For the record, I personally believe that "WISDOM" begins at the moment when an individual ceases to believe his own bullshit.
Peace, 96. We rarely if ever agree politicly, but I think you're a good person.
If she is elected and doesn't raise taxes on the middle class I will admit my wrong, but let's be realistic. Slim to no chance I will have to admit I an wrong. I am willing to put cash on it, are you?
Let's be clear, there are lots of ways to raise taxes other than income and I predict she will raise them every way she can except income and the only reason she won't raise taxes on that is so she can convince the truly ignorant that she kept her word.
If she is elected and doesn't raise taxes on the middle class I will admit my wrong, but let's be realistic. Slim to no chance I will have to admit I an wrong. I am willing to put cash on it, are you?
Yup! $25 for the American Cancer Society!
Question: What if her tax plan, in fact, has a zero tax increase or tax cut on middle class incomes (depending on the State, $75,000 to $150,000) and Congress says "no deal"? To be clear, we're talking about what she does or does not propose … agreed?
Let's be clear, there are lots of ways to raise taxes other than income and I predict she will raise them every way she can except income and the only reason she won't raise taxes on that is so she can convince the truly ignorant that she kept her word.
Now you're equivocating; But go ahead and stipulate … which "federal" taxes are you including? She's clearly talking about Federal Income Tax.
The bet is on if we can base it on specifics, otherwise, too much wiggle room.
Basically, I'll agree to the "ordinary income" category; if a middle class individual has a good year with Capital Gains and Dividends, it's not because he/she is a middle class individual, etc. .
Table 1. Tax Brackets under Hillary Clinton’s Tax Plan
Ordinary Income
Capital Gains and Dividends
Single Filers
Married Filers
Head of Household
10%
0%
$0 to $9,275
$0 to $18,550
$0 to $13,250
15%
0%
$9,275 to $37,650
$18,550 to $75,300
$13,250 to $50,400
25%
15%
$37,650 to $91,150
$75,300 to $151,900
$50,400 to $130,150
28%
15%
$91,150 to $190,150
$151,900 to $231,450
$130,150 to $210,800
33%
15%
$190,150 to $413,350
$231,450 to $413,350
$210,800 to $413,350
35%
15%
$413,350 to $415,050
$413,350 to $466,950
$413,350 to $441,000
39.6%
20%
$415,050 to $5 million
$466,950 to $5 million
$441,000 to $5 million
43.6%
24%
$5 million and above
$5 million and above
$5 million and above
Here are the biggest changes Clinton has proposed so far to individual income taxes:
I think saying a capital gains tax is off bounds is ridiculous. I am middle class and have capital gains and you probably do too. Even though capital gains taxes affect the middle class I will not take them into consideration.
"Question: What if her tax plan, in fact, has a zero tax increase or tax cut on middle class incomes (depending on the State, $75,000 to $150,000) and Congress says "no deal"? To be clear, we're talking about what she does or does not propose … agreed?"
LMAO! Nice try but NO FLIPPING WAY!!
Only if taxes go up as result of a republican majority.
I EXPECT the DEMOCRATS in congress to shut down EVERY zero tax increase so that Hillary can say she TRIED to make good on her claim and keep the idiot supporters happy... and if they do and taxes go up, then I win.
One other problem. We need to agree on "middle class". President Barack Obama talks of "middle class tax cuts" that would apply to families who earn up to $250,000, which would cover all but the top 3 percent of U.S. households. I think it is only fair we keep up to $250,000 per FAMILY as middle class. Unless you think he has already done enough damage to downgrade the middle class by $100,000.00 per year, per family, of course.
So to be clear, we will keep the bet to "ordinary tax" only, but if it is raised by anything other than a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY then YOU LOSE, and middle class will be as defined by our current president as families that earn up to $250,000.00 per year. Agreed?
I EXPECT the DEMOCRATS in congress to shut down EVERY zero tax increase so that Hillary can say she TRIED to make good on her claim and keep the idiot supporters happy... and if they do and taxes go up, then I win.
Why would democrats vote against a plan with a zero tax increase on the middle class? Republicans would do that if it was part of a plan that raised taxes on the wealthy. They'll vote against any tax increases … just as political as democrats.
One other problem. We need to agree on "middle class". President Barack Obama talks of "middle class tax cuts" that would apply to families who earn up to $250,000, which would cover all but the top 3 percent of U.S. households. I think it is only fair we keep up to $250,000 per FAMILY as middle class. Unless you think he has already done enough damage to downgrade the middle class by $100,000.00 per year, per family, of course.
I'll post the state-by-state chart as to what is considered "middle class" income if you like. It's nowhere near $250,000 for any state.
So to be clear, we will keep the bet to "ordinary tax" only, but if it is raised by anything other than a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY then YOU LOSE, and middle class will be as defined by our current president as families that earn up to $250,000.00 per year. Agreed?
No; too many variables; I do understand your point. If a tax bill were solely up to the POTUS, we could make this unequivocal … but politicians on both sides will decide the outcome. I don't doubt that any POTUS would say, "I'll do 'X' if elected," knowing full well that "X" would be the proposal with your correctly posited built in way to claim, "Hey, I tried but got sabotaged."
I'm sure we'll find something more "black and white" to bet on.
OK I didn't think you were really crazy enough to bet on a politician telling the truth especially when that politician is Hillary. Those are some terrible odds my friend LOL!
OK I didn't think you were really crazy enough to bet on a politician telling the truth especially when that politician is Hillary. Those are some terrible odds my friend LOL!
There is no argument disputing the serious shortcomings of our political system.
But your doubt in Clinton's tax objective is not grounded in her, as the individual who vows to do what she promises, nor in the promise itself; your skepticism is in the system that will subvert such an objective for reasons of self-serving political advantage.
That's why we have no way to wager the outcome; the outcome is subject to a number of factors and those factors are, in part to cause failure and then blame the failure on everything but those who foreordained it!
Analogously, if I give you my word that I will not park my car in the space in front of your house, but you, or a member of your family parks his car in front of my house, in my parking space -- leaving me no choice but to park in the one in front of your house, that, or park a block away -- it does not mean my intention was bogus.
Point being, my intention was honorable and would have been fulfilled had it not been undermined.
Were you to accuse me of "all along, counting on extenuating circumstances that would allow me to make a pledge but not keep it, that, while taking credit for trying to do a good thing," you'd either have to be a mind reader, or, more likely know that your "family member" would set me up to fail.
And if we had a wager on whether or not I could make good on the parking space and you were counting on some set up to win the bet, my actions or intentions would not be responsible for the outcome, your (Republican) family would.
What's broken in our establishment is the self-serving use of sabotage of good legislation by one party to make the other look bad. And to summarily try to destroy that establishment by putting up anti-establishment candidates who pander to anger rather than reason, delays forever the ability of that establishment to govern.
That's the set up under which we have been living; and it's your party not mine that has brought us here. And Trump has pulled back the curtain to show us that reality.
The parking space analogy is not a perfect analogy, but it's close enough. From Reagan to Limbaugh to McConnell and in between, from Gingrich's "Contract ON America" and the oligarchical hammering of the poor and middle class by your party, the failure of fairness to prevail is by design.
And it looks like maybe the pigeons are coming home to roost; I whole heartedly agree that the establishment needs fixing, but the blanket indictment strategy by your party has broken more middle class things than mine and has done much to prevent fixing what it has broken.
Yeah, they all lie, but demagoguery taken to the extreme is not going to fix what's broken … and demagoguery to the extreme is both the Republican strategy, especially over the past eight years … AND NOW YOU HAVE A POTUS CANDIDATE WHO IRONICALLY WARRANTS BEING DEMAGOGUED TO THE EXTREME!
We can wager on something else, 96.
Again … Peace.
What I am trying to understand is why there is a 10% tax rate for persons earning less than $10,000 per year. What is subsistence level? Is it not greater than $10,000 per year? Why are such persons required to even file tax returns unless the tax return has a specific category to check off if earnings are less than $10,000, not requiring other items to be completed, being a very simplistic category so that they are not forced to pay someone to complete their returns?
I think it is $20,000 or less and you don't have to file. She raising taxes on the poor but will make it up with more entitlements. LOL
In other words making the tax return sufficiently complicated so that the poor will have to hire help to complete it.
This conjures up the picture in my mind of Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) in Shawshank Redemption filling out the tax returns of all the prison guards and warden for free, but then I think everyone knows I'm a classic movie fan. LOL
When getting my hearing tested the doctor said it was amazing how well I could hear considering how bad my hearing was. I didn't tell him, but I knew why that was so. After playing music so much with other people you really learn how to listen, because without listening to what everyone else is doing, the music just doesn't get it and the group ends up sounding really crappy.
I heard her say "aren't" instead of "are", but I realize anything Hillary Clinton says doesn't make any difference anyway. She tells each group of people she is speaking to what she thinks they want to hear and that can be verified and has been verified numerous times.
One thing for sure is you can't fundamentally transform the United States without eliminating the middle class. The middle class has been decreasing and it will continue to decrease once she becomes President. It won't affect her since she has the monster foundation which will provide for the Clintons forever, kind of like the Kennedy Foundation. Any really big income or expenses will be run through the foundation. It wouldn't surprise me if all of their assests aren't owned by the foundation at this time. It would be a little stupid not to do this.
It's the way it is. She is the biggest recipient of money from Wall Street receiving more money and support than all the other candidates combined. She can say she is going to do something and maybe she will. If she wants it to go forward, she will do it when she knows it will go forward. If she really doesn't want it to go forward she will attempt to accomplish it when she knows it has no chance of going forward. It's a win win situation either way. She gets to brag on how she tried. The dumb down Americans will cheer her for trying so hard either way.
She is going to Federalized the law enforcement in this country if she can and she will be able to do so if enough collective Democrats are put into power. Then when one of her voting blocks complains about not getting promoted, she will do just like Obama and the Feds will come in and straighten it out for them.
I wonder if it is going to be an outright Fascist or an Oligarch government. I know the leadership of both parties are on the same side, so what is it called when both parties rule over the people?
I suppose that's the reason that she's leading Trump in all polls and by a substantial margin.
Those middle class folks want their taxes increased.
I can't believe someone posted this retarded shit. It says volumes about the lack of substance in the anti-Hillary camp.
Today, Trump expressed that 2nd Amendment supporters might use gun violence against Clinton or, her Supreme Court nominees/appointments.
He said what he really meant!
What goes around comes around!
Great cartoon.
I just had a thought, that since sensationalism is what the mainstream media wants in order to sell more advertising to increase their revenue and CEO income, they would WANT Trump to become President. Think of the horrors that would occur if he were the one, enabling lots of sensational headlines and stories, perhaps even daily.