As you may be aware, Nevada recently held the Democratic Debate. Not that I'm a Democrat, but we may as well accept no Republican stands much of a chance (unless Romney can gain steam), so we'd better get to know the Democratic candidates. It's obvious Hillary is the front-runner, but I must admit she infuriates me nearly every time she opens her mouth.
One example: Obama (my pick) proposes that in order to solve the pension problem we throw out the cap on what people pay in taxes that goes towards the pension program. Currently contributions cut off after you exceed 96,000 in annual salary. IE: if you make 104k, you pay into the pension plan for the first 96k, but not the remaining 8k. Clinton is against this because, and I quote "lets call it for what it really is, a tax increase on the middle class". And you all clap? WTF? Come on. Making above 96k/year in most states has no chance of leaving you in the 'middle-class'.
I'll be the first to say I HATE taxes... They are WAY too high. However, if I were fortunate enough to be making, say, 120k/year, and had the choice of paying 40,000 in taxes to a corrupt government, or 40,200 (roughly the difference we're talking about) to a government that's at least trying to get us back on the right track, that extra 200 bucks would be the least of my worries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I'm confused. How is this a tax increase on the middle class?
Hillary's really out of it. But then, they're all millionaires, aren't they?
Ya, it's kinda sickening how oblivious they can be. I'm not sure why I seem to be so interested in politics, but for now I'm chalking it up to the need to 'know your enemy'.
It's not the main point of your post, but I want to say that a Democratic victory is by no means assured.
Most of my friends either refuse to vote on principle (after all who are we kidding saying that WE picked these people to lead the country) are are simply too lazy. I vote not out of any thought that my vote is going to count for anything (typically my vote is so far against popular local opinion that it's not going to make nay difference anyways) but out of some misguided sense of duty. Right now I am hoping for Obama, mostly because a liberal is going to win and I do NOT want Hilary to win.
C'mon Pops, nothing is ever assured, but I'm a gambling man, and my money's on a democrat. Republicans need to accept that thier values are NEVER actually represented by thier party. These guys say what they want thier party to hear, not what they intend on doing.
I'm in Canada, but I take in a lot of American news. From this patch of permafrost, it certainly seems like the Republicans don't have a chance. You could argue that they've still got plenty of time to turn it around, though.
The newsrooms of the US are 95% registered Democrats. That's not just Republican grousing; that's a statistical fact (or very near to one). The American news ALWAYS gives the impression that the Democrats will win. It was "obvious" that George Bush was going to lose in 2004. It was pretty clear he was going to lose in 2000 (Dan Rather actually reported that he DID lose).
Now, mind you, the Democrats did take the White House in '76, '88, and '92. They DO win national elections, but they are not guaranteed to win this one - - especially with Mrs Clinton as the nominee.
Ach, I know reporters tend to be lefties, but in general, I don't think there's a left-wing bias. (A laziness bias, yes. Left-wing, no.) The better ones understand how to keep their own opinions out of their reporting. I think your stat's a bit off, but your overall point about leftiness is certainly correct.
A Clinton nomination would be fun to watch -- from here. :)
I'm personally a McCain fan when he's not pandering to the morons, but if I have to choose a Democrat, I'd pick Obama. Actually, I think I'd pick Obama over any of the other candidates, but there's a lot of time left before I have to get my ballot.
Try this link:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
I'm not very far off!
I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I think your point about laziness is probably correct.
I'm reluctant to make the vote = biased link.
I agreed with much of Bernie Goldberg's book about bias in the media, but it's less a matter of being openly biased than of being well-meaning but lazy.
Any good reporter would be horrified to think his news coverage is biased, and if anything, they tend to bend over backwards to avoid bias in political coverage. The true problem does not come in political coverage but in all other types of stories, where the reporter does not realise that his lazy shortcuts are introducing a subtle bias.
This is probably worth a blog post, now that I think about it.
Megan, your analysis on this subject will be more nuanced and sophisticated than mine. I will accept what you have written.
I still maintain my narrower point: the media vote Democratic, and they expect the Democrats to win. The news media are not reliable on this issue.
I accept the idea that journalists are "bending over backwards" to be fair, but we can tell the difference between the people bending forward, and the people bending backward.
The American news media are "Democratic".
Well, I'm kinda wondering why the media (the guys researching & reporting on the subject) always tend towards the Democrat.
THEY think they are Democrats because they are better informed. (Perhaps that is also the implication of your post?) I think a bit differently. I think there are class interests at work in all this, but not the classical
capital/labor classes we learned from Marx. I think there is an "information class" in America (and in Canada). The information class includes educators, bureaucrats, and journalists. The Democratic Party is the party of the information class.
That is what I was implying (although not necessarily what I belive, it's just interesting). If I get your point, you're saying the type of person who goes into that field tends to be the type of person to vote democrat, you being one of the exceptions. I'll accept that as a theory as valid as the one I threw out there & hope yours is the right one.
I'm personally not going to pick one person over another just because they say they represent a certain party. I'm for Obama purely because he's the only one without the need to backstep to cover up what he's done in the past, and because I get the feeling he wants change for the country as badly as I do. Granted they say he has a very liberal voting record (which I've never seen proof of), but when he speaks he means what he says, and he's down to earth and honest. Not sure I've ever seen that from a politician before. (Danny Williams being a possible exception)
Maybe Danny could be convinced to run for president after he becomes an official Newfoundland hero.
Nah, Americans would never appreciate his style.
I'm curious as to why there's a pension cap in the first place. Our tax system is progressive to begin with - was this some attempt to pretend otherwise?
And yeah, it pretty much goes without saying that 96k is not a middle-income salary. It is surprisingly close, however: 20% of households in America have incomes of over 100k.
I wonder... should I make a joke about the Democrats being the party for the poor?
See, there's a cap on what we can get out, so you'd think there'd be a cap on what we should put in. I do believe in that system. However, we must accept that our 'leaders' have completely messed everything up & now practically the whole fabric of our society and government has to be rebuilt.
Sadly the tax system is not progressive. It seems that way to us, but only because we have never broken through to the higher stages, where our wealth gives us power...
It may seem great that 20% of households make over 100k yearly, but it only SEEMS great. First, it's likely taking 2 salaries in many of those cases. Second, you cannot group all the demographics of America into one statistic. In Maine you may be able to get your mortgage payments down to $1000/month, but try doing that in places in California or Miami where the median hose price is over 750k... now your mortgage is closer to $5000/month (and to put 60k down on house payments you need to gross 100k before those nasty taxes). The point is that in many places it's pretty hard to live on a measly 100k/year.
The average household income in Yellowknife is $107,000. I thought this was incredible until I realised that most households have two incomes.
Post a Comment