Progressives question Obama's bona fides

zeke12 · Dec 20, 2007

Well, thanks, I think, Lyman.

Yawn · Dec 20, 2007

Lyman_Bostock said:

Zeke12 said:

You want substance, here it is:

Obama supports raising the cap on Social Security earnings in order to be proactive about the program's solvency. So do I. That doesn't make someone "right-wing" -- and the only people who think it does are the netroots wannbe Grover Norquists who don't get to make up my mind for me.

Paul Krugman should stick to economics, which he knows a lot about, and avoid politics and psychology, which he knows next to nothing about. His armchair psychobabble above amounts to one thing: He thinks Republicans are mean.

The meme that Obama is skating or not being examined is ludicrous, and beneath the both of us.

And any Democrat who has decried the Rovian element of modern American politics these past seven years and then votes for Hillary Clinton is a flaming fucking hypocrite. Politics ain't beanbag, but it ain't what she's about, either.

I'm damn tired of listening to candidates who tell me that they'll "fight" the Republicans. It's reactive and weak and insulting to my intelligence. I'm so damn tired. And I'm also damn tired of Baby Boomers who want to refight the battles of the 1960s in perpetuity. If the modern Democratic party wants to have any relevance, it will, once again, have to explain to this country that we all have a stake in the outcome of certain things, and that we all have to work to achieve the goals we set in those areas. If I wanted to vote for a divide and conquer, win at all costs bunch of slime who rely on whispering campaigns, dog whistle appeals to racism and xenophobia and general appeals to people's fears, I had my chance already twice. I passed then, and I'll pass now.

I'm damn tired of hearing about Hillary's "experience" when the whole world knows damn well that she has much less experience than Dodd or Biden, not to mention less time in elected office than Barack Obama.

Only Obama, out of the Democratic frontrunners, is running a campaign about who he is and what he wants to do when he is President. Only Obama, of the Democratic frontrunners, opposed this idiotic war from the start -- not from a liberal point of view nor from a conservative point of view, but from an intelligent reading of the situation. Only Obama, of the Democratic frontrunners, has a genuine chance at a mandate when he reaches office, thereby rendering the bleatings of desperate-to-be-tough-guys like Krugman obsolete. Only Obama, should he get the nomination, offers me a chance to vote FOR someone rather than against someone else. That's why he's got my vote.
Click to expand...

Zeke, I don't agree with most of your politics, and no way am I going to vote for Obama, but you make a lot of good points here. Righteous post.
Click to expand...

Actually I may preserve a copy of this to remind me that you are not just Fenian's cheerleader. And I mean that in an affirming way regarding this post.

The Big Ragu · Dec 20, 2007

heyabbott said:

And are we only talking about regular Social Security payments or SSI which is awarded regardless of age based on a disability? I think minorities receive SSI payments disproportionate to their population representation.
Click to expand...

We've really been only talking about the retirement benefit.... But, even if you want to lump in all of the OASDI programs, this is an argument that just looks at ONE PIECE of the equation in a vacuum (presumably to make a flawed conclusion that you didn't actually state). Relative to their incomes, minorities, who typically earn less, also pay in a more onerous amount. A 12.4 percent payroll tax hurts someone earning $25,000 a year a hell of a lot more than it hurts someone earning $125,000 a year. Not that someone who earns $125K a year is paying 12.4 percent (in employer and employee contributions). He pays LESS than that, because it is a regressive tax -- the wage base is capped at $97,500. Anything earned beyond that doesn't get taxed. That means that someone earning $250K a year pays a much lower percentage of his earnings into the program than the poor schmuck struggling to earn $30K a year. This certainly hurts poor people the way I have been arguing.

D-3 Fan · Dec 21, 2007

Ragu, you're actually making me think with what you are laying out. Fen is fucking jealous. He was never a fact freak, resorting to using political ideologies to call someone's shit out.

heyabbott · Dec 21, 2007

The Big Ragu said:

heyabbott said:

And are we only talking about regular Social Security payments or SSI which is awarded regardless of age based on a disability? I think minorities receive SSI payments disproportionate to their population representation.
Click to expand...

We've really been only talking about the retirement benefit.... But, even if you want to lump in all of the OASDI programs, this is an argument that just looks at ONE PIECE of the equation in a vacuum (presumably to make a flawed conclusion that you didn't actually state). Relative to their incomes, minorities, who typically earn less, also pay in a more onerous amount. A 12.4 percent payroll tax hurts someone earning $25,000 a year a hell of a lot more than it hurts someone earning $125,000 a year. Not that someone who earns $125K a year is paying 12.4 percent (in employer and employee contributions). He pays LESS than that, because it is a regressive tax -- the wage base is capped at $97,500. Anything earned beyond that doesn't get taxed. That means that someone earning $250K a year pays a much lower percentage of his earnings into the program than the poor schmuck struggling to earn $30K a year. This certainly hurts poor people the way I have been arguing.
Click to expand...

As I said in my initial post on this matter, the SS tax ought not have an income cap.
I'm guessing that a reason for the income cp is that benefits are capped. A person who made 90K per year receives the same monthly payment as a person who made 150K.
Additionally, I don't think it's fair to say that the tax to the employee is 12.5% since it's a matching contribution, employer/employee. The employee would never see the employers contribution but for the existence of SS.

I still believe in lifting the cap and in making the SS tax more progressive at the lower income levels. And the fact that Obama and Clinton do not is disturbing.

Fenian_Bastard · Dec 21, 2007

heyabbott said:

The Big Ragu said:

heyabbott said:

And are we only talking about regular Social Security payments or SSI which is awarded regardless of age based on a disability? I think minorities receive SSI payments disproportionate to their population representation.
Click to expand...

We've really been only talking about the retirement benefit.... But, even if you want to lump in all of the OASDI programs, this is an argument that just looks at ONE PIECE of the equation in a vacuum (presumably to make a flawed conclusion that you didn't actually state). Relative to their incomes, minorities, who typically earn less, also pay in a more onerous amount. A 12.4 percent payroll tax hurts someone earning $25,000 a year a hell of a lot more than it hurts someone earning $125,000 a year. Not that someone who earns $125K a year is paying 12.4 percent (in employer and employee contributions). He pays LESS than that, because it is a regressive tax -- the wage base is capped at $97,500. Anything earned beyond that doesn't get taxed. That means that someone earning $250K a year pays a much lower percentage of his earnings into the program than the poor schmuck struggling to earn $30K a year. This certainly hurts poor people the way I have been arguing.
Click to expand...

As I said in my initial post on this matter, the SS tax ought not have an income cap.
I'm guessing that a reason for the income cp is that benefits are capped. A person who made 90K per year receives the same monthly payment as a person who made 150K.
Additionally, I don't think it's fair to say that the tax to the employee is 12.5% since it's a matching contribution, employer/employee. The employee would never see the employers contribution but for the existence of SS.

I still believe in lifting the cap and in making the SS tax more progressive at the lower income levels. And the fact that Obama and Clinton do not is disturbing.
Click to expand...

Obama said he was open to it, to be fair.

zeke12 · Dec 22, 2007

I take little pleasure in saying it, I truly don't, but...

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/report_hillary_campaign_plans_closing_argument_centered_on_national_security_and_the_1990s.php

Karl Rove in a pantsuit.

The Big Ragu · Dec 22, 2007

The difference is Karl Rove was responsible for all of his own fucked-up thoughts. She has a team of people (not sure what to call them) creating these "strategies" for her. It's the difference between Darth Vadar and one of the Storm Troopers that runs into the firefight when the voice over the walkie talkie tells him to.

heyabbott · Dec 22, 2007

Fenian_Bastard said:

heyabbott said:

The Big Ragu said:

heyabbott said:

And are we only talking about regular Social Security payments or SSI which is awarded regardless of age based on a disability? I think minorities receive SSI payments disproportionate to their population representation.
Click to expand...

We've really been only talking about the retirement benefit.... But, even if you want to lump in all of the OASDI programs, this is an argument that just looks at ONE PIECE of the equation in a vacuum (presumably to make a flawed conclusion that you didn't actually state). Relative to their incomes, minorities, who typically earn less, also pay in a more onerous amount. A 12.4 percent payroll tax hurts someone earning $25,000 a year a hell of a lot more than it hurts someone earning $125,000 a year. Not that someone who earns $125K a year is paying 12.4 percent (in employer and employee contributions). He pays LESS than that, because it is a regressive tax -- the wage base is capped at $97,500. Anything earned beyond that doesn't get taxed. That means that someone earning $250K a year pays a much lower percentage of his earnings into the program than the poor schmuck struggling to earn $30K a year. This certainly hurts poor people the way I have been arguing.
Click to expand...

As I said in my initial post on this matter, the SS tax ought not have an income cap.
I'm guessing that a reason for the income cp is that benefits are capped. A person who made 90K per year receives the same monthly payment as a person who made 150K.
Additionally, I don't think it's fair to say that the tax to the employee is 12.5% since it's a matching contribution, employer/employee. The employee would never see the employers contribution but for the existence of SS.

I still believe in lifting the cap and in making the SS tax more progressive at the lower income levels. And the fact that Obama and Clinton do not is disturbing.
Click to expand...

Obama said he was open to it, to be fair.
Click to expand...

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

"That is the option that I will be pushing forward."

Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

'Not sufficient' to finesse the issue
Obama's proposal could include a gap or "doughnut hole" to shield middle-income earners from paying more in taxes, he said.

Obama has tried to draw contrasts between himself and front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Social Security, saying on the stump and in TV ads that she has dodged tough questions about its finances.

Obama said some tough decisions will be in order because Social Security is the most important social program in the country.

"It's not sufficient for us to just finesse the issue because we're worried that, well, we might be attacked for the various options we present," he said.

Clinton has said growing the economy will pump more money into Social Security's coffers. She also has said she would create a bipartisan commission to recommend solutions.

Social Security is projected to start spending more than it collects beginning in 2017, with its trust fund depleted in 2041.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/

zeke12 · Dec 22, 2007

The Big Ragu said:

The difference is Karl Rove was responsible for all of his own fucked-up thoughts. She has a team of people (not sure what to call them) creating these "strategies" for her. It's the difference between Darth Vadar and one of the Storm Troopers that runs into the firefight when the voice over the walkie talkie tells him to.
Click to expand...

You might be right, Ragu, but even so, isn't it a distinction without a difference?

I mean, fuck. You know?

Fenian_Bastard · Dec 22, 2007

HRC is running a tough campaign.
Karl Rove runs dishonest ones.
I'm no fan of la Clinton, but, come on, zeke, you're headed into who-killed-Vince-Foster territory here.
(And, just FYI, if Obama doesn't come up with a better answer to the "issue" of his middle name and where he went to grammar school, and for his own admission of doing the weed, all the bring-us-together stuff in thr world isn't going to help him.)

heyabbott · Dec 22, 2007

Fenian_Bastard said:

HRC is running a tough campaign.
Karl Rove runs dishonest ones.
I'm no fan of la Clinton, but, come on, zeke, you're headed into who-killed-Vince-Foster territory here.
(And, just FYI, if Obama doesn't come up with a better answer to the "issue" of his middle name and where he went to grammar school, and for his own admission of doing the weed, all the bring-us-together stuff in thr world isn't going to help him.)
Click to expand...

Just as long as his many brothers and sisters, his father's children by his other wives, don't jump up and start looking for attention, Obama won't have to worry about his middle name.

Log in or Sign up

Progressives question Obama's bona fides

zeke12 Guest

Yawn New Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

D-3 Fan Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

zeke12 Guest

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

zeke12 Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Progressives question Obama's bona fides

zeke12 Guest

Yawn New Member

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

D-3 Fan Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

zeke12 Guest

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

zeke12 Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches