Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 04, 2015, 10:57:11 AM
-
Class warfare is bad for America.
White House budget pitch: Higher taxes on wealthy, lift up middle class
By Cassie Spodak
Mon February 2, 2015
Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama's budget plan, announced Monday, lays out the President's strategy to fight income inequality against projections that the United States is still far from erasing its national debt.
The President's vision is like an opening bid in budget negotiations and will have to be squared with very different ideas expected to come from the Republicans who control the House and now the Senate too.
The 10-year plan sets the stage for the economic fight over America's future, with the White House betting voters are ready to turn the corner on spending cuts and embrace his efforts to he thinks will lift up the middle class as well as raising taxes on the wealthy.
The White House has touted a growing economy and shrinking deficits as the impetus for proposing a range of measures aimed at helping low- and middle-income families. These would be partially paid for by raising taxes on the rich, such as an increase on investment taxes and getting rid of what President Obama calls the "trust fund loophole" in the estate tax.
According to the White House, the budget would also install new taxes hitting U.S. corporations storing assets overseas and offer nearly $300 billion in tax cuts aimed at mainly the middle class.
On a conference call with reporters, senior administration officials said 44 million households would see an average tax cut of $600 apiece.
But officials acknowledged the budget is only a starting point in negotiations with Republican lawmakers who are already criticizing much of what the White House is proposing.
In an interview with NBC Sunday night, the President rejected the idea that many of the proposals don't stand a chance in a Republican-controlled Congress.
"My job is to present the right ideas, and if Republicans think they have a better idea then they should present them," he said.
Obama said he has found over 6 years that, "when I tell the American people very clearly what direction I think the country should go in, occasionally Republicans start agreeing with me."
He added, just not as quickly as he would like.
Obama said he wants to make sure everyone benefits as the economy grows.
"I want to make sure that we have not only recovered," but that the administration has built a strong foundation that will prevent the country from ever getting mired in another economic meltdown, he said.
Now that the economy is recovering, he said "we have to build on it."
The White House argues the budget focuses on making the U.S. more competitive by training future professionals and helping those already with jobs achieve more.
The rollout of these programs started in early January, with Obama announcing a range of policy initiatives ahead of his State of the Union speech. Programs include tuition-free community college, early education programs, affordable child care and housing and skill training to increase job mobility.
There is increased funding for special education, teacher training and support, and investment in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education.
The White House proposes tax credits and initiatives designed to help working parents and caregivers, as well as students struggling with debt. And it looks to incentivize programs providing training, counseling and apprenticeships to Americans and specifically veterans.
The budget also looks to change deep cuts, known as sequestration, that took effect in 2013.
The President's budget claims that it is time to replace this "mindless austerity" with smart reforms, and although Republicans agree that the forced budget cuts are dangerous, reaching a deal on what to replace it with will not be easy.
With the reversal of sequestration, Obama will look to increase spending on the military and national defense. The President's budget allocates resources to the fight against terrorist group ISIS as well as training for Iraqi security forces and humanitarian needs in the region.
Support for NATO allies and European countries targeted by Russia, stronger cybersecurity defenses and research into combating infectious diseases like Ebola are also accounted for in the budget.
Eliminating wasteful spending by modernizing and improving services within the federal government is another way the White House hopes to save money and increase U.S. competitiveness around the world.
No matter how amenable Republicans are to Obama's plan, there are some areas where his budget seems far from reality, for example: immigration.
The President's budget includes projected savings for an immigration reform bill that passed the Senate but has little chance of passing the House and or making it to Obama's desk. Although immigration is one area where both Republicans and the President will look for savings, the issue is also one of the most contentious.
Still, senior administration officials continually point to bipartisan support for some of the budget measures. One example is the $478 billion, six-year proposal to improve roads, bridges and mass transit systems.
Funding for the investment comes from taxes on foreign earnings from U.S. businesses, and administration officials say it is similar to a past Republican proposal.
As congressional leaders in both parties look ahead to the future spending battle of the coming year, administration officials point back to 2013.
Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington found consensus in a "grand bargain" budget deal in late 2013 that had something good and something bad for everyone.
President Obama wasn't happy with everything in that budget, but administration officials say they are hoping for a similar deal.
One area where Ryan, new chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, has expressed frustration with the administration is in entitlement reform. A recent report from the Congressional Budget's Office projects entitlement spending will heavily impact the U.S. economy in the coming years.
The CBO projects that the annual federal deficit for this fiscal year will be $468 billion, or 2.6% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That number reflects the gap between how much the government spends and how much it takes in.
Solid economic growth over the next few years is projected, keeping the deficit at a very modest level until 2018.
But after that the CBO expects it to gradually grow to 4% by 2025 as spending on entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and health insurance subsidies -- as well as interest on the country's debt - are projected to grow faster than the GDP.
Senior administration officials say that their strategy has never been to erase the deficit all together but rather to keep it at a level that is manageable. The President's budget projects a $474 billion deficit for 2016, or 2.5% of the GDP -- which would remain stable as both the deficit and economy grow.
Getting the deficit to below 3% allows for "sustainable" fiscal policy while investing in economic growth, officials said, citing economists.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/wh-budget-middle-class/index.html
-
Well I didn't see this one coming. ::)
Clinton spokesman: The tax hikes are coming
Washington Examiner
By Jason Russell
Published June 18, 2015
Hillary Clinton's press secretary promises tax hikes will be in her presidential campaign's policy proposals, to be released this summer and fall. Rather than use the toxic phrase "tax hikes," press secretary Brian Fallon disguised the coming proposals as "revenue enhancements."
The promise came in a tweet Monday evening, reading ".@BuzzFeedAndrew We are rolling out major policy proposals over the summer/fall. Among those proposals will be revenue enhancements."
Fallon was tweeting in response to criticism that Clinton's proposal for universal preschool did not describe how the expensive program would be paid for, as pointed out the by the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein.
Of course, "revenue enhancements" is code for tax hikes. During the Bill Clinton administration, another code word for this was "broad-based contributions."
Read more on WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/18/clinton-spokesman-tax-hikes-are-coming/
-
Well I didn't see this one coming. ::)
Clinton spokesman: The tax hikes are coming
Washington Examiner
By Jason Russell
Published June 18, 2015
Hillary Clinton's press secretary promises tax hikes will be in her presidential campaign's policy proposals, to be released this summer and fall. Rather than use the toxic phrase "tax hikes," press secretary Brian Fallon disguised the coming proposals as "revenue enhancements."
The promise came in a tweet Monday evening, reading ".@BuzzFeedAndrew We are rolling out major policy proposals over the summer/fall. Among those proposals will be revenue enhancements."
Fallon was tweeting in response to criticism that Clinton's proposal for universal preschool did not describe how the expensive program would be paid for, as pointed out the by the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein.
Of course, "revenue enhancements" is code for tax hikes. During the Bill Clinton administration, another code word for this was "broad-based contributions."
Read more on WashingtonExaminer.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/18/clinton-spokesman-tax-hikes-are-coming/
This is the society we live in. Democracy. We've been on top so long, that the bottom wants their shot at the apple. Whether they deserve it or not, they want it.
-
This is the society we live in. Democracy. We've been on top so long, that the bottom wants their shot at the apple. Whether they deserve it or not, they want it.
We shouldn't be pitting groups against each other.
-
We shouldn't be pitting groups against each other.
The wealthy are the ones pitting people against each other.
-
The wealthy are the ones pitting people against each other.
How so?
-
How so?
If you believe media does it, then there's your answer.
-
The entire structure of media works to do exactly that.
-
If you believe media does it, then there's your answer.
So when you said "the wealthy" you were talking about the media?
-
So when you said "the wealthy" you were talking about the media?
Specifically, I'm saying that media represents the wealthy. Would you agree?
-
Specifically, I'm saying that media represents the wealthy. Would you agree?
Ok. Now you're saying the media "represents the wealthy." Who are "the wealthy"?
-
Ok. Now you're saying the media "represents the wealthy." Who is "the wealthy"?
Here's a hint: they're rich people.
-
Here's a hint: they're rich people.
How do you define "rich people"? Income? Net worth? Businesses?
-
How do you define "rich people"? Income? Net worth? Businesses?
Same way you do.
-
Same way you do.
How do I define "rich people"?
-
How do I define "rich people"?
Same way we all do, when we refer to "Class Warfare".
Isn't that true?
-
Same way we all do, when we refer to "Class Warfare".
Isn't that true?
lol. Ok. Whatever.
-
lol. Ok. Whatever.
So you want to talk about class warfare, then, you should know it's being performed through media.
Like being devalued through shit immigration schemes, for instance, and having everything from Good Morning America to Nightline tell us how thrilled we are it's happening. There's your class warfare, right there.
-
BTW, two words: Rupert Murdoch.
Wanna talk about Class Warfare? There's your Class Warfare.
-
THAT is fucking Class Warfare. Wake up.
-
So you want to talk about class warfare, then, you should know it's being performed through media.
Like being devalued through shit immigration schemes, for instance, and having everything from Good Morning America to Nightline tell us how thrilled we are it's happening. There's your class warfare, right there.
You want to talk about class warfare, but have no idea who "the wealthy" are.
-
Do you deny our treatment of immigration has been an act of class-warfare, DE?
-
...and furthermore, do you deny that media was used extensively in doing that?
-
Do you deny our treatment of immigration has been an act of class-warfare, DE?
Do you want to tell me specifically how you define "the wealthy"?
-
Do you want to tell me specifically how you define "the wealthy"?
Rupert Murdoch and those he talks business with. There's my definition. How's that for easy?
-
How so?
LOLZERCOPTER
-
So, would class warfare be between someone who say, makes 300k+ a year, or something larger? Or, is it just über rich?
-
So, would class warfare be between someone who say, makes 300k+ a year, or something larger? Or, is it just über rich?
The guy making 300K: who can he pick up the phone to call?
-
Rupert Murdoch and those he talks business with. There's my definition. How's that for easy?
That's convoluted.
-
The guy making 300K: who can he pick up the phone to call?
I'm not sure I follow. If you're saying that he or she isn't rich and in a different class, ask someone making $20k a year.
-
I'm not sure I follow. If you're saying that he or she isn't rich and in a different class, ask someone making $20k a year.
How much influence does the gentleman making 300K have? That's what I'm asking you.
-
How much influence does the gentleman making 300K have? That's what I'm asking you.
Understood. But, I would say that makes little difference to the person in poverty. They'll see you in your nice house, and take it from you if shit hits the fan.
-
Understood. But, I would say that makes little difference to the person in poverty. They'll see you in your nice house, and take it from you if shit hits the fan.
Let me ask you this: How much influence over you and me, can the 300K man reasonably hope to have?
-
What things could he do toward that?
-
Let me ask you this: How much influence over you and me, can the 300K man reasonably hope to have?
Not much. But, I think if there was ever to be some uprising, that they wouldn't discern between what they perceived as comfortable living and über rich. I think to the dude making minimum wage because he dropped out of school, both groups have something he never will. Thus, the envy of anyone better than him starts.
-
Not much. But, I think if there was ever to be some uprising, that they wouldn't discern between what they perceived as comfortable living and über rich. I think to the dude making minimum wage because he dropped out of school, both groups have something he never will. Thus, the envy of anyone better than him starts.
So you'd see something called "Class Warfare" as being the result of an uprising, where people are physically taking stuff from one another. In that scenario, the poor are the aggressive ones against modestly wealthy and/or middle-class and/or people with nice possessions that are somehow vulnerable to being harmed/robbed.
Do you think there could be any other form of class warfare? Can you imagine some subtle, but very persistent form of warfare that might escape general notice (escape general notice that it is war-like, necessarily)? Anything at all?
-
"Fair share." How original.
Clinton vows to raise taxes, reform Wall Street in effort to recapture progressive base
Published July 13, 2015
FoxNews.com
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton on Monday took a giant step toward letting Democratic voters know she’s representing the progressive agenda, calling for tax increases and more regulation on Wall Street -- while making a play for a liberal base that has been gravitating toward Sen. Bernie Sanders.
“I know as much as anybody, the role Wall Street should play for main street,” said Clinton, who vowed, if elected, to “rein in excessive risks” and appoint regulators to “prosecute firms and individuals” who break the law.
Clinton also vowed to increase taxes on large corporations and the country’s highest wage-earners, an apparent effort to recapture her party’s progressive base now captivated by surging primary challenger Sanders and the reformer agenda of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is not a 2016 candidate.
Clinton specifically vowed to revive efforts to institute the so-called Buffet Rule, which is essentially a 30 percent “millionaire tax.”
“Those at the top have to pay their share,” Clinton said during her roughly 35-minute speech at the New School, a New York City college and bastion for progressive ideals. “Wealthy financiers pay artificially low tax rates.”
Clinton also called for minimum-wage increases and urged companies to expand profit-sharing of corporate earnings with workers.
“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they helped produce," she said. "That will be good for workers and good for business. Studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company's success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees' pockets."
The speech was greeted warmly on the left.
“Clinton's economic policy speech reflects a very clear understanding that the Democratic Party and the vast majority of the American people want a president who will fight alongside … Warren and refuse to kowtow to wealthy and powerful interests on Wall Street,” said Jim Dean, chairman of Democracy for America.
"Coupled with Senator Bernie Sanders' early 2016 surge, today's speech illustrates the dominate force the Elizabeth Warren wing is in the Democratic Party and the critical role it has already played in ensuring that income inequality sits at the very center of the 2016 presidential debate."
While top-tier Republican candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has called for an annual growth rate of 4 percent, Clinton asserted that the nation's economy should not be “tethered” to a specific growth figure but rather by how much income increases for middle-class households.
Clinton called out Bush by name. And in her pitch to revive labor unions and their influence on increasing wages, she cited Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, the latest GOP contender to enter the race, and suggested the entire Republican Party was trying to squash big labor.
“They made their name stomping workers’ rights,” Clinton said. “I will fight back against these mean-spirited attacks.”
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Allison Moore said in response that Clinton also should have explained how she plans to pay for all the spending.
"Whether she tells us or not, though, it’s pretty clear: she will have to raise taxes on American families," Moore said. "If she doesn’t raise taxes, then she will have to break her promises. That’s Clintonomics: tax hikes or broken promises."
Clinton also pointed to economic progress during her husband's two terms in the 1990s and more recently under President Obama.
In Clinton's approach to the economy, she says more Americans would share in the prosperity and avoid the boom-and-bust cycles of Wall Street that have led to economic turbulence of the past decade.
Clinton, who is seeking to become the nation's first female president, also addressed ways of making it easier for women to join the workforce -- including affordable child care and pay equal to their male counterparts.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/13/clinton-economic-address/
-
Bernie Sanders is a communist.
'I don't think it's productive': Sanders dodges question on 'wage cap' he once championed
by Tim Pearce
| February 09, 2020
2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders refused to say whether he still backs capping the wages of the top earners in the United States.
The senator from Vermont appeared on CNN on Sunday to discuss his campaign for president with State of the Union host Jake Tapper, who questioned the self-identified democratic socialist about a wage cap policy he championed in the 1970s and remained interested in until at least the early 1990s.
"Early in your political career, way back in 1974, you said that it should be illegal to earn more money than someone could spend in his or her lifetime," Tapper said. "You proposed a maximum wage cap on the highest earners."
Sanders dismissed Tapper, asking if the host had also gone "back to my third-grade essay when I was in PS197 about what I said?"
"We can go back to things that I said in the '70s. I don’t think it's productive," Sanders said, later continuing, "This is what I do believe. When you have three people that own more wealth than the bottom half of America, when half of our people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, when 500,000 Americans are sleeping out in the streets, yes, the rich have got to pay."
He added, "We will raise taxes very substantially on billionaires. No apologies for that."
In 1974, Sanders was 32 years old and several years into trying to launch his political career. He ran for governor of Vermont in 1972 and 1976 and ran to represent Vermont in the U.S. Senate in 1972 and 1974. During his second Senate campaign, Sanders told the Burlington Free Press that "nobody should earn more than $1 million."
As a U.S. House representative in 1972, Sanders introduced a Los Angeles Times opinion piece titled, "How About a Maximum Wage?" into the congressional record. Decades later, he remained interested in a national wage cap, which would, in effect, hike the marginal tax rate to 100% for earners past a certain income threshold.
Sam Pizzigati, the opinion article’s author and an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, said he spoke with Sanders about the possibility of a maximum wage in the early 1990s.
"He thought that this was something that needed to be explored and considered," Pizzigati said. "He thought it needed to be part of the public discourse, and that’s why he put the information in the congressional record."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/i-dont-think-its-productive-sanders-dodges-question-on-wage-cap-he-once-championed
-
The hit pieces keep on coming for Bernie. The DNC just uses him to keep the leftists in the party for the old bait and switch.
Like Bernie? You'll love a Bloomberg/Klobuchar ticket, right? Can't have them starting a competing ultra left party and killing the DNC.
I personally think the Antifa Party sounds great. Much better ring than the Democratic Socialist Party.
-
Bernie Sanders is a communist.
'I don't think it's productive': Sanders dodges question on 'wage cap' he once championed
by Tim Pearce
| February 09, 2020
2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders refused to say whether he still backs capping the wages of the top earners in the United States.
The senator from Vermont appeared on CNN on Sunday to discuss his campaign for president with State of the Union host Jake Tapper, who questioned the self-identified democratic socialist about a wage cap policy he championed in the 1970s and remained interested in until at least the early 1990s.
"Early in your political career, way back in 1974, you said that it should be illegal to earn more money than someone could spend in his or her lifetime," Tapper said. "You proposed a maximum wage cap on the highest earners."
Sanders dismissed Tapper, asking if the host had also gone "back to my third-grade essay when I was in PS197 about what I said?"
"We can go back to things that I said in the '70s. I don’t think it's productive," Sanders said, later continuing, "This is what I do believe. When you have three people that own more wealth than the bottom half of America, when half of our people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, when 500,000 Americans are sleeping out in the streets, yes, the rich have got to pay."
He added, "We will raise taxes very substantially on billionaires. No apologies for that."
In 1974, Sanders was 32 years old and several years into trying to launch his political career. He ran for governor of Vermont in 1972 and 1976 and ran to represent Vermont in the U.S. Senate in 1972 and 1974. During his second Senate campaign, Sanders told the Burlington Free Press that "nobody should earn more than $1 million."
As a U.S. House representative in 1972, Sanders introduced a Los Angeles Times opinion piece titled, "How About a Maximum Wage?" into the congressional record. Decades later, he remained interested in a national wage cap, which would, in effect, hike the marginal tax rate to 100% for earners past a certain income threshold.
Sam Pizzigati, the opinion article’s author and an Institute for Policy Studies associate fellow, said he spoke with Sanders about the possibility of a maximum wage in the early 1990s.
"He thought that this was something that needed to be explored and considered," Pizzigati said. "He thought it needed to be part of the public discourse, and that’s why he put the information in the congressional record."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/i-dont-think-its-productive-sanders-dodges-question-on-wage-cap-he-once-championed
How could anyone think a maximum wage law would be positive for our country and not just stop production? No one is going to keep working just to pay taxes.