Vote for me.

[Blackflag]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_po/clinton_retirement_accounts_15

Did anybody else see this? "Vote for me, and I'll give you $1000."

Is that a joke? Is that really the depth this country has sunk to?

That's pathetic enough, but the real pathetic part is that there are more than enough lazy fuckers in this country to jump at it. :upyours:

[FORD]

That's how Chimpy got the rich right wing vote.

[knuckleboner]

yeah, was it ok when bush proposed his $300 per person tax cut? it's a campaign promise, no different than any other.

it either has merit on its own, or it doesn't.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
yeah, was it ok when bush proposed his $300 per person tax cut? it's a campaign promise, no different than any other.

it either has merit on its own, or it doesn't.

The $300 deal was a campaign platform? I don't recall that.

[jharp84]

THIS .....country..... is in bad shape right now my friend!! But that's OK! Cause DLR/VH is playin shows! So fuck the rest and get w/the BEST!!

[Blackflag]

So true, so true...

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Blackflag
The $300 deal was a campaign platform? I don't recall that.

he promised a tax cut during the 2000 election.

Billing himself as a "compassionate conservative," Bush entered the presidential race in 1999, emphasizing tax cuts and changes in federal education policy. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/bush.new.html)


now, i'm not inherently saying that any tax cut is automatically just an election ploy and wrong. sometimes, they're the right thing to do, regardless of when you propose them.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
he promised a tax cut during the 2000 election.

Billing himself as a "compassionate conservative," Bush entered the presidential race in 1999, emphasizing tax cuts and changes in federal education policy. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/candidates/bush.new.html)


now, i'm not inherently saying that any tax cut is automatically just an election ploy and wrong. sometimes, they're the right thing to do, regardless of when you propose them.

There's a big difference between saying 'I'm going to cut taxes," and saying "I'm going to put $1000 in yoru 401 if you vote for me."

Big difference. Otherwise, she would just say, "I plan on cutting taxes."

[knuckleboner]

big difference or semantics?

i would argue that i'd RATHER have somebody fully explain their campaign promise then just make some blanket statement.

if bush says, "i'd like to cut your taxes" but doesn't give me any specifics, how much can i really support that policy decision?

on the other hand, if clinton says, "i'd give everyone who qualifies under these conditions a $1000 tax cut," then i know exactly what she stands for on that particular issue.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
big difference or semantics?

i would argue that i'd RATHER have somebody fully explain

Do you really think the difference between "I'm going to lower taxes" and "I'm going to put cash in your account" is semantics?

If it were, you wouldn't rather hear the latter.

And, yes, I know you RATHER get it fully explained how much cash is going into your account...but you shouldn't be voting solely on who's putting the most cash in your 401. That's just a carpetbagger race to the bottom.

[LoungeMachine]

I'm not sure about this, so correct me if I'm wrong...

But wasn't the $300/600 checks people received from BushCO actually just advances....

I think I remember that people ended paying that back the next year on their tax returns.

[LoungeMachine]

And it's fucking ridiculous beyond belief that ANYONE is runing on lower taxes, rebates, 401K, bonds, etc.....

We have a half-trillion dollar war to pay for that is off-budget.

The next President will face the same economic crisis that faced Carter.

Nixon handed him the bill for Viet Nam.

Why is no one running on "I'm raising taxes on war profiteers to help pay for the war" ??

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Blackflag
Do you really think the difference between "I'm going to lower taxes" and "I'm going to put cash in your account" is semantics?



actually, according to your article, hillary's plan was to give people a tax cut, to be rebated to the 401k if they contributed to their own 401k programs. so it is kinda semantics between:

"tax cut" and "$1000 tax cut."



i mean, is it any different than saying, "if elected, i'm going to cut your estate taxes to zero?" or "i'm going to give you a $3000 tax credit for buying a hybrid?" or, "i'm going to remove the marriage penalty for income tax filings?" or...

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
And it's fucking ridiculous beyond belief that ANYONE is runing on lower taxes, rebates, 401K, bonds, etc.....

Exactly, but whatever it takes to get elected, right? Promise whatever it takes.


Originally posted by knuckleboner
i mean, is it any different than saying, "if elected, i'm going to cut your estate taxes to zero?" or "i'm going to give you a $3000 tax credit for buying a hybrid?" or, "i'm going to remove the marriage penalty for income tax filings?" or...

Ultimately, you're right. But it's very dramatic to say 'everybody gets $1000 if I'm elected." So what's the point of this campaign promise?

Appeal to the moron vote, of which there is plenty. Appeal to the base greed. Fucking cheap carpetbagger tricks.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Blackflag


Appeal to the moron vote, of which there is plenty. Appeal to the base greed. Fucking cheap carpetbagger tricks.

Sure worked in 2000, 2002, 2004

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Sure worked in 2000, 2002, 2004

Again...exactly right. That's why I'm so sick of people thinking their "party" is better than the other. They are both equally shit.

Same as 2006, by the way. Remember all the promises the candidates were selling?

There's just something about the naked 'cash in your account' promise that seems like a new low to me. If that's not flat-out buying your vote, I don't know what is.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Blackflag
But it's very dramatic to say 'everybody gets $1000 if I'm elected." So what's the point of this campaign promise?

Appeal to the moron vote, of which there is plenty. Appeal to the base greed. Fucking cheap carpetbagger tricks.


technically, the promise is that if you contribute a certain amount of your own money to your 401k, the government will rebate a portion of your federal income taxes into that 401k account. that's slightly different than simply saying that i'm cutting you a check for $1000.

and honestly, i really don't see this as so bad (compared to any other campaign promise.) it's saying that in order to promote personal retirement savings, the government would provide some level of tax rebate to further your savings. and, instead of me thinking that the government's tax rebate would completely cover all my retirement expenses, the proposal states that it's capped at $1000 per participant.


now, i can choose to support or oppose clinton based on this issue. is it a good one? is it too expensive on the whole? is it actually doable?