A Real Plan...

[SnowRider]

Let's talk about the issues and economic plans.  A thread about Dump's plan to explode the debt with more giveaways to the wealthy has already been defended by many on here. Now let's look at Hillary's:

The changes mean Clinton’s tax plan will fall even more heavily on wealthy and high-earning taxpayers. She has already proposed a so-called “millionaire tax,” requiring people who earn more than $1 million a year to pay a minimum income-tax rate of 30 percent, and for those who make more than $5 million a year to pay a 4 percent surtax. 

Clinton is also proposing about $250 billion in tax cuts for taxpayers with children, for childcare expenses and for small businesses – and some $140 billion in new health-care and education spending, the report said. Considering all of those provisions, the latest iteration of her revenue-and-spending plan would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years – a figure that’s about $50 billion less than the budget-policy group estimated for an earlier version of her plan.

More from Bloomberg.com: Top Earners Back Clinton in Bloomberg Poll After Decades With GOP

“These revenue increases have not been published on the campaign’s website but have been shared with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget,” the report said.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clinton-tax-plan-grows-550-042155790.html

 

As we know - the D's have been the fiscally conservstive party.  The annual budget deficits have declined under Clinton and Obama....and the same can not be said about the R admins.  Many people complain about the increased percentage of wealth flowing to the very top - top 1% - yet defend policies that continue to allow it. Historically the very wealthy have paid much higher rates and had fewer loopholes than they do today.  As a result - our budget deficits were far less and we still had significant growth.  Many of you drank the Kool aid in the 80's and the results speak for themselves - increased percentage of wealth flowed to the top and deficits increased - there is no denying it.

Many of you consider yourselves to be fiscal conservatives - so I assume you support the candidate who runs a $20 Billion/year deficit vs the one who runs a $530 Billion/year deficit   

And if you're going to discuss spending - be specific and make your numbers balance - Where's it coming from and how much.  And remember - the candidate who's increasing the annual debt by $530 billion also wants to increase military spending. So that piece of the spending pie is off the table.    

Edited September 23, 2016 by SnowRider

[Rigid1]

To bad she is known for saying one thing and doing another,..I read that and just think  to get elected so she can line her pockets..

[SnowRider]

Independent analysis. . The isssue will be the R's filibustering it and not allowing it to pass to protect the 1%  So why are you and others defending the R's who will clearly oppose the more fiscally conservative plan? 

i read on here earlier this week from a Rump Pumper that you can only go off what they propose.....

[Skidooski]

Another one all of a sudden concerned about increasing the debt albeit much less then the current POTUS has. Hillary sinking dude and we might just get stuck with trump. Maybe you should have your 'come-to-Jesus' moment and finally acknowledge this

[SnowRider]

2 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

Another one all of a sudden concerned about increasing the debt albeit much less then the current POTUS has. Hillary sinking dude and we might just get stuck with trump. Maybe you should have your 'come-to-Jesus' moment and finally acknowledge this

$500?

Now back to the OP....any comments or are you going to continue to add nothing to the site and merely follow me around?  

Any factual analysis that's supports Dumps plan as the more fiscally sound and better for the middle class? 

[Skidooski]

Why the sudden concern for our debt? Did Obama not raise it enough already? How much does Trump's plan inflate it in comparison to Obama's last 8 years? You don't support 5.3 increase but don't say much about double that?

[SnowRider]

1 minute ago, Skidooski said:

Why the sudden concern for our debt? Did Obama not raise it enough already? How much does Trump's plan inflate it in comparison to Obama's last 8 years? You don't support 5.3 increase but don't say much about double that?

The snnual debt has been trending down and if you're so intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge much of the deficit spending saved us from W's fiscal cliff - then you're in the wrong thread.  

Besides - how does discussing and focusing on the budget from 8 years ago justify the difference with the 2 proposals currently?   

[Skidooski]

4 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

The snnual debt has been trending down and if you're so intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge much of the deficit spending saved us from W's fiscal cliff - then you're in the wrong thread.  

Besides - how does discussing and focusing on the budget from 8 years ago justify the difference with the 2 proposals currently?   

Comparing the current presidents track record of spending like crazy to what you think Trump might actually end up doing has no merit?

[Freddy the Freeloader]

43 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

$500?

Now back to the OP....any comments or are you going to continue to add nothing to the site and merely follow me around?  

Any factual analysis that's supports Dumps plan as the more fiscally sound and better for the middle class? 

This snowrider feller sure seems to have a lot of money to throw around we could use some at the mission

[Skidooski]

1 minute ago, Freddy the Freeloader said:

This snowrider feller sure seems to have a lot of money to throw around we could use some at the mission

Apparently he's a hugely successful lightbulb saleswoman that's throwing his life savings at bets on here where he supports a candidate that has sagging poll numbers....might not pull the younger votes that she needs and expects..... and surely won’t pull the black vote like Obama did. Panic ensues now and will snowball after Monday with a poor performance at the debates let alone another medical anomaly

[Freddy the Freeloader]

2 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

Apparently he's a hugely successful lightbulb saleswoman that's throwing his life savings at bets on here where he supports a candidate that has sagging poll numbers....might not pull the younger votes that she needs and expects..... and surely won’t pull the black vote like Obama did. Panic ensues now and will snowball after Monday with a poor performance at the debates let alone another medical anomaly

We have been praying at the mission for her health, asking the great invisible man upstairs for her aneurism to come to fruition

[Skidooski]

1 minute ago, Freddy the Freeloader said:

We have been praying at the mission for her health, asking the great invisible man upstairs for her aneurism to come to fruition

 Hillary's or SnowRider's?

[Freddy the Freeloader]

Both would be an answer to our prayers

[racer254]

" Clinton is also proposing about $250 billion in tax cuts for taxpayers with children, for childcare expenses and for small businesses "

snowbeavis, I thought you said tax cuts DON'T work?  LOL.

[SnowRider]

11 minutes ago, racer254 said:

" Clinton is also proposing about $250 billion in tax cuts for taxpayers with children, for childcare expenses and for small businesses "

snowbeavis, I thought you said tax cuts DON'T work?  LOL.

Notice they are targeted.  However there is $550 billion in new revenue over 10 years that's coming directly from those at the top. Cutting taxes for the less than 1% only allows a greater percentage of wealth to flow to the top while leaving the reset behind with exploding debt.  Her formula works and is fair for the middle class.  Why don't you agree? 

[Rigid1]

10 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Notice they are targeted.  However there is $550 billion in new revenue over 10 years that's coming directly from those at the top. Cutting taxes for the less than 1% only allows a greater percentage of wealth to flow to the top while leaving the reset behind with exploding debt.  Her formula works and is fair for the middle class.  Why don't you agree? 

Oh I think we all would agree it would be great for the middle class, but do we believe it is the real question. IMO its all BS to get that vote. 

[racer254]

I do agree, tax cuts work for the middle class.  Remember what was said.

"Tax revenue on average has historically raised with tax cuts.  Its not debatable." 

 

•  

Edited September 23, 2016 by racer254

[Skidooski]

4 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

Oh I think we all would agree it would be great for the middle class, but do we believe it is the real question. IMO its all BS to get that vote. 

[SnowRider]

What is there about Dumps plan that you guys like better than Hillary's?  

2 hours ago, SnowRider said:

Independent analysis. . The isssue will be the R's filibustering it and not allowing it to pass to protect the 1%  So why are you and others defending the R's who will clearly oppose the more fiscally conservative plan? 

i read on here earlier this week from a Rump Pumper that you can only go off what they propose.....

How many of you plan to vote against the R party to prevent them from filibustering the better of the two plans?  

 

 

[racer254]

Let's talk about hillary's plan.  How much $$$ is the millionaire tax going to bring in?

[Highmark]

Per capita the govts already collects over $20,000 per person.   Enough is enough.  

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue_2015USrn

 

[SnowRider]

7 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Per capita the govts already collects over $20,000 per person.   Enough is enough.  

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue_2015USrn

 

How does that translate into support for Dumps plan? 

And if enough is enough - balance the budget and show your cuts and revenues  Remember - you're also supporting more military spending.  

 

 

[SnowRider]

10 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Let's talk about hillary's plan.  How much $$$ is the millionaire tax going to bring in?

It's in the link  What do you think about the bottom line numbers of her plan vs your candidate? 

[racer254]

15 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

It's in the link  What do you think about the bottom line numbers of her plan vs your candidate? 

We are talking about hillary's plan, and I didn't see it in the link, what does it say?  How much $$$ per year?  Show me where it says how much she expects to get from this tax.

Millionaire Tax

The changes mean Clinton’s tax plan will fall even more heavily on wealthy and high-earning taxpayers. She has already proposed a so-called “millionaire tax,” requiring people who earn more than $1 million a year to pay a minimum income-tax rate of 30 percent, and for those who make more than $5 million a year to pay a 4 percent surtax.

Clinton is also proposing about $250 billion in tax cuts for taxpayers with children, for childcare expenses and for small businesses – and some $140 billion in new health-care and education spending, the report said. Considering all of those provisions, the latest iteration of her revenue-and-spending plan would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years – a figure that’s about $50 billion less than the budget-policy group estimated for an earlier version of her plan.

Edited September 23, 2016 by racer254

[SnowRider]

6 minutes ago, racer254 said:

We are talking about hillary's plan, and I didn't see it in the link, what does it say?  How much $$$ per year?  Show me where it says how much she expects to get from this tax.

Millionaire Tax

The changes mean Clinton’s tax plan will fall even more heavily on wealthy and high-earning taxpayers. She has already proposed a so-called “millionaire tax,” requiring people who earn more than $1 million a year to pay a minimum income-tax rate of 30 percent, and for those who make more than $5 million a year to pay a 4 percent surtax.

Clinton is also proposing about $250 billion in tax cuts for taxpayers with children, for childcare expenses and for small businesses – and some $140 billion in new health-care and education spending, the report said. Considering all of those provisions, the latest iteration of her revenue-and-spending plan would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years – a figure that’s about $50 billion less than the budget-policy group estimated for an earlier version of her plan.

The totality: 

Hillary Clinton wants roughly $550 billion in new taxes and fees over the next decade – affecting investment partnerships, large estates and banks – that have received little to no public discussion from her campaign, a report from a Washington-based policy group shows.

The new proposals, detailed in a report by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, include plans for increasing the estate tax to a top rate of 65 percent on the very largest estates, levying a “risk fee” that would average about 0.13 percent on banks’ taxable assets and curbing a technique real-estate investors use to minimize their tax bills.

 

The millionaire tax is included in the $550 billion.  But if you want the details:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-hillary-clinton-s-tax-proposals