O'Reilly vs. Hillary Part I

[OCinBuffalo]

While this was billed as a deathmatch, I gotta say that it has been anything but. I thought that was the most reasonable exchange of ideas I have seen out of two very polarizing people in a long time.

 

Hillary gets a B+ for doing this, so far, might even be able to get an A depending on tomorrow. Not saying that she's right or wrong, but she did a hell of a job looking willing to deal with problems and not too aloof, or smug, to deal with the very reasonable questions she was asked. And unlike the far-left pukes that try to duck every question, change the subject, blame everybody else, she actually answered the questions frankly.

 

Overall, this can only help her. Again, she did a good job of showing me something other than bumper sticker logic, and she actually owned up to a 6% tax hike on income and "more to come" on payroll. At least that is honest.

 

However, the only thing that sucked was he just flat out told her she hasn't done sh-- for upstate and that things are worse than when she got elected, instead of making her say what she had done. That was a mistake in my book. And she said that she has done some things and supported others, but he let her off the hook by saying "we have business to do".

 

I find that hysterical, especially for all those near-socialists out there, that their potential candidate is referring to her activity as "doing business". I thought that was a no-no = "Bush's fault".

 

All in all, this was a good idea for Hillary to do, and she actually showed me she knows how to get things done even with people who aren't her biggest fans. Most importantly she flat out said: "Rich people should take pride in making a better economy for our children"(implying that they should be happy to pay more taxes), and I actually think that's what she believes. Nice to hear that presented that way instead of the usual "rich people bad, rich people greedy, no rich people have actually worked to make themselves rich, they were born that way" nonsense.

[Chef Jim]

All in all, this was a good idea for Hillary to do, and she actually showed me she knows how to get things done even with people who aren't her biggest fans. Most importantly she flat out said: "Rich people should take pride in making a better economy for our children"(implying that they should be happy to pay more taxes), and I actually think that's what she believes. Nice to hear that presented that way instead of the usual "rich people bad, rich people greedy, no rich people have actually worked to make themselves rich, they were born that way" nonsense.

 

How is paying more taxes good for the economy? I didn't rely on my parents to make things good for me. This is my main beef with the left, they don't feel people can be sucessful on their own, they need help.

[bills_fan]

She actually said she would hike income taxes 6% and then hike payroll taxes on top of that? Please clarify.

[OCinBuffalo]

How is paying more taxes good for the economy? I didn't rely on my parents to make things good for me. This is my main beef with the left, they don't feel people can be sucessful on their own, they need help.

Hey I am merely saying what she said. I don't need to rely on my parents either, and paid for most of school on merit/my money. The point is what she said is a clear departure from the usual, lame-ass, class warfare BS. I guess what I am saying is she didn't go back to the old chestnut: "rich people didn't earn their money anyway so it's ok if we steal it from them".

 

The fact is that most "rich people" worked hard to get that way. But the real wealthy pay hardly any taxes at all, since their money is coming from the profits of ownership = a zillion tax loopholes, rather than the kind of income that comes from a paycheck and is pretty cut and dried. That's the funny part, to them we are all poor, and like Boss Tweed said: you can always get half the poor to kill the other half. The liberals need to start targeting those who don't contribute anything to society other than their bodily waste after their "charity" dinners, rather than going after people who have worked hard to make $250k a year.

 

Example: name one positive thing of substantive benefit to others that Paris Hilton has contributed to society besides a great subject for a South Park episode.

 

But wait, oops, most of the do-nothing wealthy are liberals! I wonder why? Couldn't be that they'd rather have the $300k people pay all the taxes they should be paying, um, Heinz family and Kerry, nah, I'm sure they know better than us why they should only have to pay 15%.

She actually said she would hike income taxes 6% and then hike payroll taxes on top of that? Please clarify.

She said specifically that the personal income tax for the top bracket is going to be raised to "90s" levels, which is around 38-9% for all $250k and above people. That's a 6 point uptick for that bracket from today. But it's not that simple: in fact some "rich" people are paying more right now than they did in the 90s = those who make over $300k = 39% as opposed to 37% under Clinton. Most people don't realize how many brackets there are once you get past $100k. Of course the tax laws are as straightforward as a ball of yarn, so this can be spun all over the place. I also think it's hysterical that they never just go ahead and make it 40% = would make the math easier = as though they think we don't know that $19.95 = 20 bucks, and therefore we will be fooled by "39%" <> 40%.

 

WRT, FICA = Social Security tax = Payroll Tax(not the same technically but that's what they called it in the interview), she didn't say how much she was going to raise it specifically. O'Reilly said: "Well, it sounds like you are going to raise it 8%, so that totals up to 14% increase in taxes for me." She basically said that she wasn't sure about 8%. I got the impression that she intends to raise it, but she's not sure how much yet, and doesn't think it will be as high as 8%, but that she also didn't want to be pinned down on an exact #. Interestingly, she invoked Reagan( cue: Molson_Golden tearing hair out) of all people and said she would do something similar to what he did.

[/dev/null]

Example: name one positive thing of substantive benefit to others that Paris Hilton has contributed to society besides a great subject for a South Park episode.

 

Paris was a pioneer, nay a trailblazer, of celebrity internet sex tapes

[molson_golden2002]

. Interestingly, she invoked Reagan( cue: Molson_Golden tearing hair out) of all people and said she would do something similar to what he did.

LOL, ya, she was on Fox, dude, what do you expect? You actually bought it? That's funny!

[Chilly]

Example: name one positive thing of substantive benefit to others that Paris Hilton has contributed to society besides a great subject for a South Park episode.

 

a BJ video

 

damn, the black hole beat me.

[pBills]

I especially liked the part in the interview where Bill was saying that her tax increase would affect rich people... and she said "God Bless Us". A little elitist? :-)

[OCinBuffalo]

LOL, ya, she was on Fox, dude, what do you expect? You actually bought it? That's funny!

But I thought you said Republicans always lie and Democrats are never disingenuous? Or are you telling us to to ignore your last 1000 posts?

[PastaJoe]

How is paying more taxes good for the economy? I didn't rely on my parents to make things good for me. This is my main beef with the left, they don't feel people can be sucessful on their own, they need help.

 

Sometimes the economic engine needs to be primed, and if the additional taxes revenues are used to stimulate job growth through investment in research in such things as green technology, and public work projects like rebuilding our infrastructure, that puts construction workers to work, which creates demand for the products and resources they use, and so forth. Now if we didn't have such a deficit and have to pay for the war in Iraq, then maybe more taxes wouldn't be necessary, but it is what it is, and what's being done now with the Bush tax breaks without spending cuts isn't working for the working class.

[PastaJoe]

I especially liked the part in the interview where Bill was saying that her tax increase would affect rich people... and she said "God Bless Us". A little elitist? :-)

 

Nice to know some wealthy people are willing to pay a greater portion of the tax burden. Being rich doesn't make someone elitist, it's what they're willing or not willing to do with their money, and how they perceive the working class that may have different cultural values then them that makes them elitist.

[Alaska Darin]

Nice to know some wealthy people are willing to pay a greater portion of the tax burden. Being rich doesn't make someone elitist, it's what they're willing or not willing to do with their money, and how they perceive the working class that may have different cultural values then them that makes them elitist.

I'm sure your retort would be just as genuine if the politician making the statement had an ® next to their name. [/rhetorical]

[PastaJoe]

I'm sure your retort would be just as genuine if the politician making the statement had an ® next to their name. [/rhetorical]

 

I'd be happy to applaud rich Republicans who are willing to pay a higher percentage of the tax burden, as soon as I find them.

[bills_fan]

She said specifically that the personal income tax for the top bracket is going to be raised to "90s" levels, which is around 38-9% for all $250k and above people. That's a 6 point uptick for that bracket from today. But it's not that simple: in fact some "rich" people are paying more right now than they did in the 90s = those who make over $300k = 39% as opposed to 37% under Clinton. Most people don't realize how many brackets there are once you get past $100k. Of course the tax laws are as straightforward as a ball of yarn, so this can be spun all over the place. I also think it's hysterical that they never just go ahead and make it 40% = would make the math easier = as though they think we don't know that $19.95 = 20 bucks, and therefore we will be fooled by "39%" <> 40%.

 

WRT, FICA = Social Security tax = Payroll Tax(not the same technically but that's what they called it in the interview), she didn't say how much she was going to raise it specifically. O'Reilly said: "Well, it sounds like you are going to raise it 8%, so that totals up to 14% increase in taxes for me." She basically said that she wasn't sure about 8%. I got the impression that she intends to raise it, but she's not sure how much yet, and doesn't think it will be as high as 8%, but that she also didn't want to be pinned down on an exact #. Interestingly, she invoked Reagan( cue: Molson_Golden tearing hair out) of all people and said she would do something similar to what he did.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. Dear god I hope McCain wins this election and I don't even particularly like the guy.

[GG]

I'd be happy to applaud rich Republicans who are willing to pay a higher percentage of the tax burden, as soon as I find them.

 

Why should people be penalized for being more enterprising and successful?

[IDBillzFan]

I'd be happy to applaud rich Republicans who are willing to pay a higher percentage of the tax burden, as soon as I find them.

And I would be happy to applaud any Democrat who doesn't find it necessary to play Robin Hood simply to gain votes by promoting the belief that those who are less fortunate are somehow entitled to what the rich have earned.

[molson_golden2002]

I just think everyone should have to pay according to their means to support the national community. We are all one big happy family afterall! So we should joyfully pay our share and shoot anyone in the back of the head who tries to resist

[PastaJoe]

Why should people be penalized for being more enterprising and successful?

 

They're not being penalized, they're giving back to the land of opportunity whose military protects their freedom of expression and capitalist enterprise, and whose abundant infrastructure gives them distribution networks to sell their products or services.

[DC Tom]

They're not being penalized, they're giving back to the land of opportunity whose military protects their freedom of expression and capitalist enterprise, and whose abundant infrastructure gives them distribution networks to sell their products or services.

 

-King George III, circa 1772

[GG]

They're not being penalized, they're giving back to the land of opportunity whose military protects their freedom of expression and capitalist enterprise, and whose abundant infrastructure gives them distribution networks to sell their products or services.

 

OK, let me rewrite, why shouldn't everyone give back to the land of opportunity whose military protects their freedom of expression and capitalist enterprise, and whose abundant infrastructure gives them distribution networks to sell their products or services?