Hillary Mailer Hits Obama On Social Security And Taxes

Comments (91)

benjoya wrote on January 16, 2008 4:59 PM:

"keep more of your hard-earned dollars"? why, that's positively reaganesque!

Greg wrote on January 16, 2008 5:01 PM:

is a bizarre flyer. I don't get it.

Seth H. wrote on January 16, 2008 5:01 PM:

Again with Hillary and intentional deception and distortion. Obama's been very clear about his social security plan and I don't know how one could be confused into thinking that it would somehow affect the middle class. Raising the cap isn't taking more money from anyone except those that can afford it. Someone earning $100,000/yr. is simply not at all in the middle class.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:01 PM:

First post.

Who's using Republican talking points, again?

This is a perfect example of why Obama is the better candidate. if there is a good idea out there, but the superficial aspects of it don't poll well, he'll still try and implement it.

This is a fair tax. Why is Hillary against it?

Tom wrote on January 16, 2008 5:03 PM:

Greg,
Did you post this on purpose to contrast with that other thread?

The Clinton supporters are busy attacking Obama for merely stating the obvious about Reagan while their candidate is attacking Obama with this standard right-wing BS.

grover_rover wrote on January 16, 2008 5:03 PM:

Don't you just love it when Hillary acts like a total Republican? Complete with lying about her opponents position and trying to scare people away from those darn "tax and spend" Democrats. She is so low.

I'm glad you posted Obama's response, because all too often he doesn't really get a voice when trying to respond to these attacks (she likes to let them fly right before an election so he can't really rebut them). But if you've listened to Obama's plan, it makes perfect sense, and it doesn't hurt lower or middle class people. It just puts social security more in line with progressive values on taxation: fair. But of course Hillary will still stoop to GOP levels by attacking her opponents from the far left, just so she can get ahead.

I wonder if she is going to drop her horrible lie-ridden abortion mailer too. That seemed to work well for her in NH.

Maybe she can turn her "vote for me or we'll be attacked by terrorists" message into a mailer.

She disgusts me.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:07 PM:

Tom-

I concur. Nice point.

Jason wrote on January 16, 2008 5:07 PM:

I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

It shows a lot about you when you cannot win on your ideas, you have to lie and smear your opponents.

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 5:08 PM:

This is the one Hillbots really can't respond to. I personally can't believe she is going for this "trillion dollar tax increase" line. This is a much bigger progressive issue than any of the "mandate" stuff....and Hillary has skated. She's stepping in it.

Response from the bots?

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:08 PM:

One more:

What's Hillary's "blueprint" to build the middle class? Is it the same as Nixon's "secret plan" to win the war?

Besides, I thought Obama was thin on specifics and big on rhetoric in this campaign...

Jeff L. wrote on January 16, 2008 5:09 PM:

It's the same technique as in NH. Drop a mailer lying about Obama's stand 3 days before the election.

Do you suppose she'll do the one that smears his pro-choice record?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:10 PM:

She needs to change that tag line to "time to pick a lying DLC sack of shit"

John wrote on January 16, 2008 5:11 PM:

Up next, a mailer highlighting Obama's ultra-liberal stance on mandatory minimum sentencing and assault weapons.

"Can we really trust him?"

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:11 PM:

Jason-

Were Hillary the nominee, and I still think she will be, I'd still vote for her. One of those "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type situations.

Or, lesser of two evils.

Whatever. Bloomberg would shake my confidence, but I am sure my feminist GF and mother will convince me to pull for HRC in the end.

My point: Saying you'll never vote for her is throwing too much into this election. That is just another vote, then, in the Republican's favor.

And those guys, believe it or not, are the real bad guys.

They really are. Believe me!! ;)

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:12 PM:

John-

Mark Penn would love you, if you didn't have any principles.

Oaktown wrote on January 16, 2008 5:14 PM:

The real problem with this ad, IMHO, is not just that it's misleading, but that it's not a sincere effort to get people to vote for Hillary. This is, quite plainly, an effort to move people who would otherwise vote for Obama into voting for a Republican or no one at all. Does Hillary's campaign really think that a significant number of people convinced by this ad would ever vote for her? Straight out of the Rove playbook.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 5:14 PM:

Good for Obama. The last time I heard him describe his plan, he did not have the doughnut hole in there exempting those earning $97,000 to $200,000. Then again, he does say "might" regarding that. And he doesn't say at what income level you hit the new cap.

As long as he stays away from privatization, I'm good with it.

But how is it not a tax incease?

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:14 PM:

The bots will stay out of this thread because this is THE issue that exposes Clinton as a DLC fraud. In Hillary land, if you have less than 97,000 income, or your family has LESS than a 200,000 income, you're not middle class.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:19 PM:

Where did all the Hillary supporters go? Are they still arguing about Obama's Reaganishness? maybe back to Taylor Marsh?

Yeah, I concede it's a tax increase. But certainly not on "America's hard working families," or at least not 97% of them.

Plus, should he raise the cap on the tax, would that, possibly, result in a lower, overall, SS-tax rate, since more money would be pumped into the system?

Hence, those families making less that $97,000 would actually see a tax DECREASE?

Just thinking.....

Bupalos wrote on January 16, 2008 5:20 PM:

"But how is it not a tax incease?"

Who said it wasn't?

Seth H. wrote on January 16, 2008 5:20 PM:

Again with Hillary and intentional deception and distortion. Obama's been very clear about his social security plan and I don't know how one could be confused into thinking that it would somehow affect the middle class. Raising the cap isn't taking more money from anyone except those that can afford it. Someone earning $100,000/yr. is simply not at all in the middle class.

mcc wrote on January 16, 2008 5:20 PM:

There's also a reference to New Hampshire families sending more of their "hard-earned dollars to Washington."

You mean Nevada families? :)

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 5:22 PM:

Damn, you guys are good at baiting the bots, if that's what you call anyone who thinks Hillary is not a she-devil.

Her point, at least as she said it in one of the debates, was that although statistically sampled across the nation people making $97000 to $200,000 per year are way above median income, if they have a family in lots of parts of the country, particulary New York and California, they are by no means comsidered outside the middle class. If you are paying a $2000 per month mortgage for your 2 bedroom condo in San Jose on a $100k salary, you are middle class.

I know that is uninspiring pure wonkery, but it is true.

Nickal wrote on January 16, 2008 5:25 PM:

Hillbot, here.
Billionaires are people too, ya know! Just kidding. They're really not.
Seriously, it is nice to hear that Obama has stopped using the Republican talking point that Social Security is in crisis. I guess HRC and Paul Krugman finally got through to him. This is a very bad and ill-informed flier, though I don't think it sinks to the depth of a dirty trick. For a definition of that, see the anti-McCain flier now being circulated in SC.
I'm glad I'm a Democrat!

John McCutchen wrote on January 16, 2008 5:26 PM:

The Most Dangerous Place in Washington:
Between the Clintons and Elective Office

How about some REAL news Sargent?

AP:

WASHINGTON - It's become something of an urban legend that the Bush administration is out to retrieve enlistment bonuses from wounded veterans of the Iraq war, a claim perpetuated by Hillary Rodham Clinton in the latest Democratic presidential debate. The New York senator told a national TV audience Tuesday night that the administration has shown negligence in its treatment of veterans and gave as a leading example a policy that doesn't exist.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:27 PM:

Dawn,

That's fine. Barack's "doughnut"- maintenance of the $97k cap on salaries up to $200k or so would fix that problem.

The idea here is that people making millions of dollars are the ones who should pay the full payroll tax. Since there is a problem, as you have noted Dawn, that's why he wants to have a doughnut to limit the impact of the wage-earners you mentioned.

K?

And, by the way, just because I am an Obama fan doesn't mean I am a "hillary hater." I'd vote for her, were she the nominee. I might even support her if it were between her and JRE ("Devil I know for Record I know").

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

I don't think Obama has ever said SS is in crisis.

I'd like someone to point me in that direction, if possible.

Phil wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

The mailer -- which was also dropped in New Hampshire before the primary -- has some anti-tax, anti-Washington language that might sound out of place in a Dem contest

Some insight as a Nevada voter. Nevada democrats are more moderate/conservative than the national party. Arguing for low taxes is an argument that plays well for Democrats here, particularly Democrats in rural area's up North.

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 5:30 PM:

We need a Democratic Reagan, not a Reagan Democrat.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 5:30 PM:

Who said it wasn't?

Sorry, maybe I misinterpreted. People were saying that she was lying about Obama's plan. I assumed they meant that since she said Obama was raising taxes on the middle class, the raising taxes part was where they thought she was lying. Now I see that they think she is wrong in her interpretation about what constitutes the middle class.

There are lots of opinions about the definition of middle class. It is not as cut and dried as it may seem.

SoCal Dem wrote on January 16, 2008 5:32 PM:

I never like it when Democrats use Republican talking points and this mailer is no exception. I wish Clinton hadn't sent it.

Having said that, Obama brought this on himself by repeatedly attacking Clinton and claiming there was a social security crisis when he knew damned well that there wasn't. I notice now that he's getting attacked, there's no longer any crisis and Social Security is a long-term problem.

Live by the rightwing talking point, die by the rightwing talking point, Barack.

RS wrote on January 16, 2008 5:34 PM:

Her point, at least as she said it in one of the debates, was that although statistically sampled across the nation people making $97000 to $200,000 per year are way above median income, if they have a family in lots of parts of the country, particulary New York and California, they are by no means comsidered outside the middle class. If you are paying a $2000 per month mortgage for your 2 bedroom condo in San Jose on a $100k salary, you are middle class.

I know that is uninspiring pure wonkery, but it is true.

Accepting your point for the sake of argument, it would still make a flier about Nevadans pretty disingenuous, no?

This thing is bizarre for so many reasons, not least of which is that she trashes the idea of raising taxes and offers instead some unspecified plan to "balance budgets." Well how does she plan to balance budgets if not with a tax hike?

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 5:34 PM:

Angry Vet,

People making millions of dollars are not drawing a paycheck. Social Security is not meant for them.

I am all for raising their income tax however - letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and then raising taxes again if that is what it takes to fix the deficit. That is a separate issue from Social Security. I like to keep that in Al Gore's lock box.

dcshungu wrote on January 16, 2008 5:35 PM:

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:28 PM:

I don't think Obama has ever said SS is in crisis.

I'd like someone to point me in that direction, if possible.

I do not wish to make an Angry Vet angrier but you asked for it, and we shall not disappoint: Obama Refers To "Social Security Crisis"

Anonymous wrote on January 16, 2008 5:35 PM:

"You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis"

That's the quote that is being equated to the Social Security crisis comments, interpret as you will. I think it's a bit of stretch to characterize that way but it was a poor choice of words.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:38 PM:

Dawn,

CEOs still draw a paycheck, believe it or not. They work for more than just stock options, don'tchaknow.

timbnyc wrote on January 16, 2008 5:40 PM:

Flat-out lies, huh? I guess that's all Clinton's got left.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 5:43 PM:

Well, I know that Nevada had a real hot real estate market during the boom, and is one of the fastest growing Western states, if not the fastest. It would not surprise me if there are not a lot of people in the 100k to 200k income range in trouble there at the moment.

I agree that the flier acts like all there is to Obama's economic plan is his SS plan. So yeah, I see the misleading part there. I just don't think it is a huge deal, and in typical Clintonian fashion the wording is fine tuned to be factually true but not tell the whole story. On the other hand it does not go into detail on her plan either.

But as far as political hardball goes, this seems like pretty low grade stuff.

My main point is that Obama and his supporters better watch it before they go telling people in the West that make between 97k and 200k that they are 'rich'. They won't make many friends that way.

Jeremy wrote on January 16, 2008 5:45 PM:

Obama used the word "crisis" once or twice, took the criticism, and has corrected his verbage. All the candidates agree that there's a long-term shortfall. Obama tells us what he thinks about how to fix it. Hillary hasn't found her voice on the issue yet. She wants to have a bipartisan commission study it before she'll share her thoughts with voters. That cuts us out of the conversation.

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 5:47 PM:

Obama did in fact say "crisis."

I stand corrected, but not angrier.

whowouldjesusbomb? wrote on January 16, 2008 5:48 PM:

Hillary actually did mention his gun stance before, saying he was too liberal on guns to win the general. Yeah...she is super GOP..

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 5:48 PM:

CEOs still draw a paycheck, believe it or not. They work for more than just stock options, don'tchaknow.

Good point, sorry. But I do think SS taxes should be capped at some point short of the multi-million dollar range. So does Obama, I'm pretty sure. I just can't remember what number I have heard him mention and I don't have time to look it up right now.

John Birch wrote on January 16, 2008 6:02 PM:

Hillary, come home to the Republican party. We miss you.

Steve Johnson wrote on January 16, 2008 6:03 PM:

First, I'm an Obama supporter, but I think he's wrong on this issue. Social Security should be left alone, for now. The reason is that projections twenty years into the future are unrealistic. There's the possibility that we'll get a cure for cancer, and people will live longer. There's also the possibility that lifestyle issues like stress and obesity will limit lifespan increase. We just don't know. Sure, we should keep an eye on things, but the medicare problem could be called a crisis much more than Social Security.

Bill R. wrote on January 16, 2008 6:03 PM:

This is classic Rovian, Bush-league. Can't she do better than that? Mark Penn, Karl Rove, they're all on the same page.

hadenough wrote on January 16, 2008 6:06 PM:

"And: "We need a President that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn...""

Outragous! How dare she!
[Drops Monocle]

Angry Vet wrote on January 16, 2008 6:07 PM:

Dawn-

Cool.

However, I don't think you are correct as far as Obama stating a new cap. Maybe he has, maybe the subject hasn't come up. However, since he is citing the second richest man in America (Buffett) saying the tax is not fair, it suggests to me that he wants to eliminate the cap entirely.

Which is fine by me.

poetry wrote on January 16, 2008 6:08 PM:

Barack Obama has said Social Security is in "crisis."

Whoa, I thought some of us -- along with Josh Marshall -- just spent two years (after Bush's re-election) batting down that Republican talking point.

No one did more hard research than Josh Marshall regarding the Social Security issue back when Bush and the GOP thugs were lying to the American people about the solvency of the Social Security trust fund -- and about whether or not the program was in "crisis" and needed to be privatized or fixed right away.

Josh Marshall is right on target here.

------------------------------------------------------
-- from "Stop Saving Social Security"

by Josh Marshall - Talking Points Memo - Nov. 1, 2007 (note the date)

I said last night that I disagreed with the oft-stated claim that it just gets harder to 'fix' the non-existent Social Security crisis the longer you wait. In fact, as I thought about Obama's proposal to remove or retool the cap on Social Security taxes I got to thinking that it's not just not necessary to do right now but that it actually might be a bad idea altogether.

Many have argued that having this debate at all buys into the right-wing argument that there's a 'crisis' that needs to be solved and thus that the politics are all wrong. But put that aside, let's talk about whether it makes sense even on substance.

When it comes to the policy and number-crunching nitty-gritty of Social Security I'm definitely an amateur. But I think I've got a decent sense of the political-economy of the question. We need to remember that now and for at least a decade into the future Social Security is actually subsidizing the rest of the federal budget. The program brings in much more than it pays out. As we all remember from the voluble debates two years ago, the surplus is being used to buy U.S. government bonds which go into the Trust Fund. And that socked away money will keep the program solvent through the middle of this century as the baby boomers retire, and revenues in no longer cover promised payments out.

We've been doing that for about a quarter of a century.

The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. If that's true, it means that American workers have spent the last twenty-five years using their payroll taxes to subsidize general revenues and make it easier to float big tax cuts for upper-income earners without getting anything in return.

If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. In fact it will enable more deficit spending and probably more upper-income tax cuts because it will make the consequences of both easier to hide.

If we want to push the buffer of the Trust Fund further out onto the horizon, then fiddle with payroll taxes when Social Security would need to start dipping into Trust Fund. In other words, in a decade or so. I see no reason why this approach doesn't work just as nicely then as it would now.

As Paul Krugman noted in the interview I did with him a few weeks ago, the window of time we had to seriously pare down the national debt to prepare for the retirement of the baby-boomers is close to over. Still, though, our best way of ensuring the future health of Social Security is to stop running up the national debt now. So I'm very reluctant to put more payroll taxes in the pot while we're still running big deficits because of the Bush tax cuts. The money will just go to subsidizing that irresponsible fiscal policy.

If there is any sense in which the 'Trust Fund' is not 'real' it is that it must be paid back from general revenues. And that will only be harder the more other debt we're running up. So rather than solving the problem, I think we're actually enabling it.

The second problem is that we need a national agreement or consensus that the Trust Fund is real, that it will be honored, and have the debate about the future of the program on that basis. Otherwise, we're still risking getting played in the same bait-and-switch privatizers have been trying to pull for years -- using regressive payroll taxes to fund current government spending and then telling future recipients that that money has disappeared and thus Social Security has to be phased out altogether.

Lifting the payroll tax cap while Social Security is still running a big surplus not only solves a problem that doesn't exist, it enables the very policies that put the program in danger. Perhaps this is all another way of saying that I'm not a fan of putting more hens in the hen house while the foxes are still at the door, or even in the house.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057584.php

DonnaG wrote on January 16, 2008 6:11 PM:

I think Hillary is playing to deceive her specific constituency here, i.e., the less informed folks who are most likely to erroneously take the idea of 'raising the cap on SS' as raising their own SS taxes which come out of their paychecks. Pretty devious and dishonest, if true.........

bob wrote on January 16, 2008 6:14 PM:

Yes, Hillary is running a dirty campaign to confuse the electorate, particularly those who are not paying close attention.

The Obama campaign needs to respond aggressively, mailing the same people.

Common Sense wrote on January 16, 2008 6:30 PM:

We need a President that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn...""

The problem is those hardworking families are tax 100% on their income, versus those above $103,000 (which I believe is the cap for 2008). That's what's unfair about the way she positions this. Most middle class folks are already taxed on 100% of their salaries. They aren't going to be impacted.

It's a scare tactic.

wglad wrote on January 16, 2008 6:47 PM:

How come the polls out today showing Mrs. Clinton stomping Mr. Obama again nationally aren't getting any play? We had a headline earlier today when Zogby had Mr. Obama pulling even. Anybody know if that is the on-line poll Zogby does or some other Zogby poll?

writersclog wrote on January 16, 2008 6:54 PM:

Steve - So your approach is basically that we shouldn't deal with an issue until it's become a crisis? Isn't that the sort of thinking that's gotten us into the mess we're in now (rise of terrorism, the environment, Medicare, etc etc)? As an Obama supporter this is one of the reasons I support the guy. He's willing to think about solutions proactively even if the conventional wisdom says we can wait.

Besides which, increased lifespans can cut both ways in this debate. Could mean more people working longer (more money into the pot), more retirees living longer (crisis worsens).

Never Certain wrote on January 16, 2008 7:01 PM:

When will Obama learn that he cannot remain passive in the face of these Rovian attacks? A mailer should go now, accusing Hillary of sympathyzing with the millionaires while it is he, Obama, who actually cares about hard working people!

Basically it's a simple issue of incentives. Currently Hillary throws mud, and Obama does his best to clean his clothes. End result: some mud sticks, and Hillary gains. It's exactly the same as when Bush attacked Gore and Kerry.

The right defence is to attack back. When Hillary lies or misleads Obama has to say so, loud and clear. This is partly to defuse the attack and hit back, but also it is essential so that he doesn't appear to be a softie.

Finally, Obama should never attack Hillary except as a counter attack. An aggresive reply wins you points, but an unprovoked attack will hurt his image.

Publicus wrote on January 16, 2008 7:02 PM:

Wglad:

There are lots of polls out today. Some good for Senator Clinton, some not so good.

mary wrote on January 16, 2008 7:22 PM:

"Playing to her base" is exactly right. It has been shown that Obama does better with middle and higher income Americans, while Hillary's strength is the lower income. Who do you think is more informed? Also who do you think will be swayed? The uninformed take at face value whatever "the powers that be" say. They are also more susceptible to the scare tactic (Soc. Sec, terrorism, etc.)They pick hillary, not on substance, but because they know the name, and she's a dem. That is it!

kid oakland wrote on January 16, 2008 7:28 PM:

Oaktown hits the nail on the head.

The rhetoric of this mailer is aimed at driving turnout downwards and away from Obama. It has nothing to do with Clinton's core support.

What the Clinton camp won't tell Democratic primary voters is that she will lock us into yet one more "Red State / Blue State" battle...because Senator Clinton's entire campaign is based on appealing to our core base.

It will base vs. base with Clinton in the general. One more time around giving up on Colorado / Virginia and North Carolina and perhaps losing Iowa...and fighting for Ohio and Flordia.

That alone is reason to look elsewhere.

mary wrote on January 16, 2008 7:36 PM:

Guess what, folks: We're in the middle of an election campaign, and there's a lot strategery going on! I wish I could take comfort in believing that Hillary is evil, and Barack is good. But that's a very Manichean view of the world (which reminds me of someone . . . oh, right -- GW Bush).

I know that most people in this thread are up in arms about the headline on the mailer, but . . . I take my cue from people like Josh Marshall and Dean Baker, and I strongly disagree with Obama on social security. I don't think any Dem should be talking about fixing it right now.

wglad wrote on January 16, 2008 7:41 PM:

Pretty scary syllogism of sorts Mary just put together. According to her, all those un-degreed, working class folks voting for Mrs. Clinton are just plain ignorant, or maybe even stupid. And Mr. Obama is the candidate of the educated upper classes. Like stay in school and get that degree or you'll get stuck voting for Mrs. Clinton? The games people play.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 8:04 PM:

Angry Vet,

You could well be right that Obama has not mentioned having a cap at all. In that case I disagree with his plan on that one point because I believe the analysis I have seen says that SS does not need that strong of a 'fix', and also if the rich feel overtaxed on SS they will push harder to "reform" it more by privatization, whereby it would get invested in their funds and they make money on it.

Elizabeth wrote on January 16, 2008 8:05 PM:

(Sorry if this is a duplicate)

Of COURSE it's meant to deceive, specifically to decieve the less educated, poor citizens who gave her the edge in NH (where this flyer went out *1* day before the election). If HRC was truly interested in having an honest 'conversation' with voters or to truly 'contrast' her position with those of her opponents, the statement of Sen. Obama's position would have read:

"Lifting the cap on Social Security taxes SO THAT THOSE OF YOU MAKING OVER $102,000 A YEAR WILL send more of your hard-earned dollars to Washington."

But then ... that wouldn't be very frightening to her targets would it???

Disgusting!!!!! I would just love it if someone would ask her to defend this mailer (and the even worse one on right to choose) at one of these debates!

(BTW, I tried to find out *her* proposal re: Social Security - isn't clear in the mailer, can't be found on her web site. You can get to Obama's very easily. So much for the candidate with substance!)

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 8:09 PM:

I'll just add that I don't think Obama even needs a social security plan right now. He fell for the Bush bamboozle about how Dems couldn't criticize his plan without coming up with one of their own. There is a long term shortfall, not a crisis that has to be solved in the first or even second term of the next president. I'm fine with Hillary's commission idea, just like they did in the 80's. It was always known that SS would need tweaking from time to time. Adjusting the cap seems a fine way to go, but we don't have to decide right now.

abby wrote on January 16, 2008 8:12 PM:

The $97000-200,000 change is pure B.S. You'll know if you live in NY/NJ areas. Paying a $3750 a month on mortgage in secaucus, NJ and 2400p.a on car insurance will make 120k look like a small amount. Believe me there are a lot of people living in/around the metro areas.

A better idea would be to tax on the income above 100k, nothing on 0-100, just an idea. But it may not work out for the govt. though.

dana wrote on January 16, 2008 8:16 PM:

Now Hillary mocks all the hard working flight attendants.

Before it was ridiculing women who stay home and work their butts off (Baking cookies my ass!!).

May be if she tried to satisfy her husband in the bed, he would not have needed Monica’s and the other gals attentions.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 8:17 PM:

Elizabeth - Hillary's idea is to set up a commission like they did in the 80's to come up with a solution to the long term shortfall. That's why there is no plan on her site.

Really, all Dems on either side need to know this, because it is a Republican talking point and may come up in the fall. There is no social security "crisis" that has to be "solved" any time soon. See Josh's archives on the main TPM site for more details.

I've got TPM's new slogan: Come for the HIllary-Obama flame-wars, stay for the Social Security bamboozlement discussion!

Elizabeth wrote on January 16, 2008 8:54 PM:

Thanks, Dawn. Actually, I had heard her say in another debate that she wanted a commission but wanted to be accurate, so I looked for - and wasn't able to find - that proposal (or any other) on her web site.

Bottom line:
--- if Clinton is contrasting her Soc. Sec. position to Obama's, then she should say what hers is (and describe his honestly) ....
---- if she's comparing her overall tax ideas for middle class and seniors to Obama's, then she shouldn't focus on (and distort) only his Soc Sec idea. He has many other proposals in that area as you *can* see on his web site.

The point here isn't whether or not Soc Sec needs fixing. It's whether Clinton is being honest and fair to the voters. She is not.

She is depending on their believing her lies and distortions and encouraging their fears. --- Now, maybe that's a great technique; it certainly worked for George Bush and Karl Rove! But that doesn't make it any less disgusting.

And this kind of thing is what will prevent me, and I suspect others, from ever giving her our vote. How someone runs their campaign is a little window, perhaps the best we can have, into how they will govern. I don't want even a tiny bit of responsibility for putting in the White House another person who is going to be lying, deceptive, arrogant -- 7+ years is enough!!! I'd honestly rather have a Republican with some degree of integrity (intelligence would be nice also) and work hard to keep the Dems in power in Congress.

Michael A wrote on January 16, 2008 8:55 PM:

Oh my God, Oh my God. Wglad you are a sexist mysogynist, you are a hillary-hater, you are a sexist pig that hates women. You called clinton MRS. CLINTON. Oh my God, sexist, sexist, sexist. Don't you know calling her MRS. CLINTON is like calling her chattel. Sexist mysogynist pig. Disgusting.

Just trying to help out the clinton supporters like texasmoddem/colonpowwow, dc, jan, and the rest of them.

NH Dem wrote on January 16, 2008 9:14 PM:

The format of this is identical to that of the deceptive NH Clinton mailer on choice pictured here:

http://www.peterglenshaw.com/peter_glenshaw_weblog/2008/01/tears-to-fears.html

(Or click name.)

Which is a different format from all Clinton's other flyers.

I guess the campaign just figured the dishonest hit pieces should have their own distinctive look.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 9:18 PM:

Elizabeth, I do agree with you about it being misleading. I also don't like playing to the fears of people who don't have the time or resources to figure out the truth. We have had enough of that. And since that was the point of posting the flier to begin with, I'm sorry I got diverted into the SS discussion. I guess I did that because Obama emphasized it in his statement.

I do defend Hillary a lot in the posts when no one else is, but I won't try to defend this one. Some days I like Obama more, some days Edwards, some days Clinton. I will vote for the Dem nominee. If there were a Republican running who had a degree of integrity maybe I would be tempted, but that has not been an option in a long time.

It will be ironic if Obama's first test as a national Dem leader will be to help get Clinton elected if she is the nominee. Can he rally his supporters to save the country and elect Clinton? Or does he believe also that one of the Republicans is just as good?

stlounick wrote on January 16, 2008 9:41 PM:

Dawn, from an interview I heard with Obama, he stated that the fix to SS was proposed because the public remained concerned that SS would "not be there" for them.

Also, I simply do not view this as a Republican talking point--their talking point was privatization.

Elizabeth wrote on January 16, 2008 10:29 PM:

>>>If there were a Republican running who had a degree of integrity maybe I would be tempted, but that has not been an option in a long time.

LOL ............ but also a sigh and sad shake of the head.

I, too, wonder how Obama and Edwards would handle rallying their supporters on her behalf, esp if it seems she won because of these moves. And what *was* the impact of those two 'last minute' mailers on that 'last minute' surge for her in NH? a surge particularly among the less educated, less wealthy and therefore less likely to believe they were lies/distortions and less able to factcheck in a hurry.

Someone posted (sorry I can't remember who it was and can’t word it as well as they did) that sensible Republicans knew in 1972 that Nixon was bad for their party and for the country and they knew in 2004 that Bush '43 was bad for their party and the country. But most/all of them felt that party loyalty or their fear of the other alternative prevented their saying so or holding back support.

This year many of us have that same sense about the idea of HRC (and Bill) in the White House, despite her many strengths and abilities. Things like the mailers; their effort to stop Obama's attempt to set the record straight on the one sent 3 days before the NH primary; the racial schism that they didn't stop (she had a chance on Meet the Press to act as Obama did the following day, but she fanned the flames instead); the lawsuit in Nev and their claimed 'innocence' in the matter. All this is just too telling. And unlike those Republicans, we are unwilling to just 'go along' and allow our silence or our votes help it happen.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 11:24 PM:

Dawn, from an interview I heard with Obama, he stated that the fix to SS was proposed because the public remained concerned that SS would "not be there" for them. Also, I simply do not view this as a Republican talking point--their talking point was privatization.

Now this is just funny. You know why the public is concerned that SS won't be there for them? Bush and friends told them it wouldn't be. That is part of the talking point.

Elizabeth I am with you up to a point, but why didn't Obama stop his supporters from fanning the flames as well, like when Jesse Jackson Jr. complained that Clinton didn't cry in public over Hurricane Katrina? Or Eric Dyson on Hardball? What did she do on Meet the Press to fan the flames? I saw nearly the whole show and I did not see that. Why are Obama's union supporters in Las Vegas telling people they can't caucus at all if they don't pledge for him? I could go on.

I don't pretend Hillary is pure, and I know Obama is not either.

Dawn wrote on January 16, 2008 11:29 PM:

I wish I had the luxury of worrying about what is best for the Democratic party. What is best for my country is that a Democrat win in November. Any of the 8 or 9 original ones running would have been fine with me. Maybe it will be Obama, and you can all have a clean conscience about it too.

lifelongvoter wrote on January 16, 2008 11:59 PM:

These past few days have showed an ugly under belly side to the Clintons. I guess I am just sad to have the curtains open on them. I was wrong to defend them. They are despicable. And, Bill should stay home. Hillary is not a role model to women: she is the worst kind of story...a marry well story for young girls. I have voted for a Democrat in every election for the past 30 years. I will not vote for Hillary. The Democratic party is not worth protecting anymore...I feel as if I am a co dependent keeping them afloat even though it is bad for both of us. For the first time I understand the people who vote 3rd party rather than vote compromise their vote. I want to vote for someone. I do not want to vote out of fear. I do not want to live in fear. I do not believe John Edwards is anything but a spoiler and a narcisist (forgive spelling). If he brings up the son of a mill worker one more time I might break my tv. For me it has to be Obama or 3rd party for the first time in my long voting life

Mary wrote on January 17, 2008 1:16 AM:

Lifelong,

I'm glad. I wish more Hillary supporters would look at the facts and say "This is not how it was suppose to go. This is not what we stand for"

I too have been disgusted by the way our country has been headed. I have to tell you - you wont be sorry for your Obama vote. He has been my senator here in IL for years and he is every bit as good as he seems.

I for one am looking forward to a president who has not only READ the constitution but TAUGHT THE CONSTITUTION.

Devisive politics is done. Time to rebuild our country and our image around the world. It is time to stand together.

Dawn wrote on January 17, 2008 6:57 AM:

There are lots of perfectly fine reasons for not voting for Hillary. I myself preferred and donated to Chris Dodd, who has read the Constitution and more actively defended it in the Senate. But this is patently false, and a personal attack that I thought the Obama campaign was supposed to be above.

Hillary is not a role model to women: she is the worst kind of story...a marry well story for young girls.

Anyone who watched her performance in that debate the other night (and others) and has seen her throughout the years and believes that she would not have been successful in any endeavor she chose, with or without Bill Clinton, is letting their personal dislike of her cloud their judgement.

Marry well? She married a poor guy from Arkansas. That she either had the good judgement to know he would be a success, or else to marry him regardless of his prospects in life knowing they could make it work anyway, is to her credit. How is that not a role model for young women?

Dawn wrote on January 17, 2008 7:04 AM:

It is slightly more accurate to say that Bill Clinton was successful because he married well - the Rodhams were a lot more well-off than the Clintons, and Hillary was at least as promising a law student as he was - but I never hear him called "a married well story". You don't have to scratch hard to find the sexism in the anti-HRC crowd.

Dawn wrote on January 17, 2008 7:43 AM:

Just to a avoid a lot of posts - I did not mean to imply above that all anti-HRC is sexism, merely that some of it is and it is easy to see when it is there.

Bruce Webb wrote on January 17, 2008 7:58 AM:

How many people making more than $200,000 actually earn it through wages as opposed to gains on capital? It is as likely as not that Warren Buffett doesn't draw a salary at all, Steve Jobs doesn't.

If Obama intends to structure his 'cap increase' in a way that actually hits millionaires and billionaires I am willing to listen. But realistically the way to do that is on the capital gains side, not laundering it through Social Security in a way that gives the truly wealthy a free pass.

75% of 160% = 120%. I call it (with permission) Rosser's Law. Current scheduled benefits would have the average retiree in 2040 earning a retirement check 160% of what a similar situated retiree earns today. If the economy performs down to the levels the Trustees of Social Security project (and it probably won't) then that check will reset to 75% of that level in 2041 meaning the average retiree in 2042 will only get a check in real terms 20% better than the one my mom gets today. Well that is a pretty damn selfish definition of 'crisis'.

Either Obama doesn't understand how taxes are assessed between wages and returns on capital in which case he needs a tutor, or he does and needs to stop peddling this Buffett line. You want to tax billionaires more? Great, increase marginal rates. Just don't screw around with Social Security.

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 8:44 AM:

Well, Obama earns an "idiot" star for this one.

If Social Security's not in crisis and it's a long-term problem, why bring it up now?

When we have Iraq, mortgage-bust, incoming recession, complete judicial crisis, etc.?

Obama doesn't have enough on his plate - he's going to reform Social Security too? (And yes, I saw a $100,000/year salary with $2700/month rent for a crap apartment plus medical expenses place me in the distinctly less than upper class - perhaps Obama should hone his "tax the rich" speech a little before he gets to general elections.)

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 8:50 AM:

And yes, lifelongvoter's rant is pretty ugly with her "marry well" bitch - never in a million years a chance that a woman helped build her husband's career, that she didn't give up much of her own future for family's sake?

What will the First Woman President do after the Inauguration? The dishes and the ironing. Welcome to the enlightened 2000's.

Dawn wrote on January 17, 2008 9:28 AM:

I'm glad Obama was a good state senator for years. I was a vocal supporter of Obama when he first came on the national scene - told all my friends about him and sent out links to his convention speech, and was very happy to see him elected to the Senate. I'm originally from Illinois and was even proud on that superficial level. I just wish he were more of a leader in the Seante now. I count myself in the 90% of Americans who don't approve of the current Congress. I expected the new group of Democrats, all of whom ran against the war, to lead the charge in trying to stop it. I expected them to be on my TV every day, and filibustering bills when necessary. Or at least making the Republicans actually do a filibuster instead of just threaten one. Or maybe stand up with Cindy Sheehan or the Jersey Girls every now and then. I'm still waiting.

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 10:11 AM:

Desider wrote: "Well, Obama earns an "idiot" star for this one. If Social Security's not in crisis and it's a long-term problem, why bring it up now?"

Obama didn't "bring it up now"; Hillary's campaign did.

DonnaG wrote on January 17, 2008 10:45 AM:

The only thing I have in my life which is totally within my control is my integrity. The means I chose will form me in the end. Period.

The means Hillary choses will form her in the end.
Period.

I don't agree with anyone's belief that the 'end justifies the means', and that is what a lot of commenters supporting Hillary seem to be saying about her dirty tricks like this mailer.

Sorry, Hillary campers, Hillary may have co-opted your souls to the point that you are blind to your own original sense of uprightness in competition, just like the drug assisted athletes.....

Hillary will have to do a lot of soul searching changing of her behavior before I would ever lose my personal integrity and vote for her.

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 12:03 PM:

Anonymous 10:11 (is that a Biblical verse?)

No, Obama put "Social Security is in crisis" into the mix. Go back and read Atrios and TPM. He backpedaled on the "crisis" part, but he played a good solid Republican on this one.

DancingBear wrote on January 17, 2008 1:23 PM:

I'm "Anonymous" (thought I put my screen name in, but oh, well). I agree Obama said "crisis," but that's not what you said--you said "why bring it up NOW?" (emphasis added). Hillary brought it up now, not Obama.

As to why he brought it up at all when it's a long-term problem, Obama clearly explained why--because acting early can resolve the issue much more painlessly than waiting until it really is a crisis.

I don't get the "Republican talking point" meme on this one. If you say "Social Security crisis" to justify privatization, I suppose that's Republican (although Bush never could explain how letting current workers take their money elsewhere now resolved any funding shortfalls). If you say "Social Security crisis" to justify raising taxes on the rich, how is that "playing a good solid Republican"?

CallMeADreamer wrote on January 17, 2008 1:28 PM:

This tactic from the Clintons is the same one the Republicans used when they convinced a lot of gullible people to buy into the concept of "death taxes." It is a blatant misrepresentation of facts. IMHO the Clintons are doing a great disservice to the Democratic party with their win-at-all-costs approach. Save it for the general election should, God forbid, Hillary be the nominee. I don't want to throw away my vote in November but the Clinton machine is causing me concern.

Jane wrote on January 17, 2008 2:50 PM:

Does anyone know if Obama's campaign distributes anti-Clinton fliers?

Desider wrote on January 17, 2008 7:24 PM:

To be clear, by "Why bring it up now", I meant say before 2012. As I noted, a whole lot of work to do on more important issues.

DancingBear wrote on January 18, 2008 10:43 AM:

Desider, thanks for the clarification. I certainly agree (and probably Obama would also) that there are many more pressing issues.

montypythoncleese wrote on January 20, 2008 8:35 PM:

When will you people take a breath of fresh air and reflect on why some of the policies you espouse here, and the rhetoric you use, will forfeit any chance you may have to obtain any sort of electoral mandate? There's a degree of hypocrisy that the electorate does and will see through.

Saying that billionnaires have too much money obviously doesn't justify raising the tax rate 6 percentage points (12 in the case of self-employed professionals) on couples earning $100k per year. That's two kids just out of medical school with astronomical debts. Not billionnaires. Why don't you think of a tax increase on billionnaires, for heaven's sake? Because your movement is financially dependent on contributions from certain billionnaires?

Moreover, you're not proposing to use the money to benefit the poorest of the poor: rather, an entitlement that, as you say, benefits the vast majority other than those few financially successful individuals that you want to despoil. On what do you base the idea that people earning 100k should sustain a tax increase of $6k or $12k while people who earn 60k or 80k should have the taxpayers start paying for their kids' health insurance (while benefits under the same program that were intended for the poorest of the poor go unclaimed)?

How do you rebut the inference that you represent a greedy element of the middle class that wants to take money earned by people who are brighter than you, harder working than you, luckier than you, whichever, and redistribute it to yourselves? When that money could go to people in Africa who stand in relation to you financially as you whine you stand in relation to CEOs?

If you truly believed what you profess to believe, you would reduce your own standard of living to that of your third world fellow human beings. Tomorrow. And that includes outsourcing jobs to people in India who can do them better than you can. Even if they have dark skins and aren't as hip and ironic as you are.

Ask yourselves those questions and then ask why you think the electorate won't see through your holier-than-thou hypocrisy. Or ask yourselves the honest question, "if I go to sleep at night even though my brothers in Africa are dying, and I don't share my wealth with them, how can I expect other people not to be ashamed to join with me in expropriating for my own financial benefit the $100k a year people whom I envy and hate?"

Please respond with an essay explaining why you are entitled not to share even-Steven with third world people, whereas in this country $100k a year people are morally obligated to share $6k or $12k of their $100k with $80k a year people. And don't say it's because you merely want to buy the votes of the $80k a year people.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)