Wealthy Clintons Want You To Pay The Bill
by Big Dog on May 13, 2010 at 10:51 Political
As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not a fan of taxing the rich more to pay our bills. The wealthy in this country pay most of the bills and suffer the biggest burden for the spending of our government while 47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes and many of those get back money they never paid in (redistribution of wealth). Progressives are big on having the rich pay the bills and they work hard every day to raise taxes on the wealthy but only on the wealthy who are not politicians. The political class thinks the taxpayer should foot the bills for them as well.
Case in point, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton ran for the presidency in 2008 and she lost to Barack Obama. Clinton amassed a lot of debt during that time and has yet to pay all of it off. She still owes just over three-quarters of a million dollars. The Clintons have over 100 million dollars and Bill earns at least $250,000 each time he gives a speech but they have decided that they should not write the check for her debt even though it would not dent their personal fortune. Hillary’s campaign still has over 600 thousand dollars in the bank so she could settle a large part of this debt with money that was already donated (and pay the rest out of her personal fortune) but the Clintons do not want to do it that way.
By 2007, seven years after leaving the White House, the Clintons had earned a combined $109 million (£73 million) through speaking engagements and bestselling memoirs. Even so, apparently they would prefer American voters to settle Mrs Clinton’s remaining $771,000 debt rather than paying it themselves. Times Online UK
Instead, they want voters to pay off the debt for them. Bill Clinton is offering a day with him in New York to a person selected from those who donate to settle Hillary’s debt. People are urged to donate as little as $5 to get a chance to be picked to spend the day with Bill. This is reportedly the second time such an offer has been made (I guess he is not as hot a commodity as he thought) as Bill works to get others to pay his debt.
This is typical of progressives. They love to spend money but they do not like to pay the bills with their own money. They would rather get money from others to pay their bills.
When Bill was president and, later, Hillary a Senator, they loved taxes and making the rich pay. Bill Clinton said he did not feel he was taxed enough (though he has not sent more money to the government, which he could do) and he and his wife love the idea of taxing the rich to pay the bills. They just don’t want rich people to have to pay the bills if they are the rich people in question.
I have a suggestion for the Clintons that would erase their campaign debt.
Take the money the campaign has in the bank and add it to enough of your personal wealth to pay the bill. Then write a check to pay it off.
You get the responsibility of paying your own bills, your creditors get their money, and the people do not foot the bill for what you spent.
Progressives love to spend other people’s money.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bill clinton, debt, fund raising, Hillary Clinton, progressives, rich people, taxes
Unbridled greed, thy name is Clinton.
The entire “progressive” conception of virtue is about voting. You’re a good person if and only if you vote for social-fascist, redistributionist policies. If you do that, nothing else is required of you; you can defy every other ethical norm civilization has ever produced. If you don’t do that, you’re going to Hell, and neither you nor your arguments deserve even one moment’s consideration.
In light of the well-documented fact that persons of conservative orientation donate far more of their time and money to charitable undertakings than “progressives” — a word they chose as a label only after “liberal” became radioactive — the “progressive” attitude toward paying their bills should be as unsurprising to a conservative as the “progressive” attitude toward taxation. But conservatives, by and large, retain a distressing tendency to assume “progressives” share the conservative moral and ethical structure. Really, we should know better by now. The Ten Commandments are far too old to be trendy enough for a “progressive” to give them his attention!
Once more, it’s time for a reapportionment of terms. I wonder what leftists’ next self-label will be?
FRAN: ““progressives” — a word they chose as a label only after “liberal” became radioactive —”>>
DAR
Those in Francis’ camp have a long and cherished tradition of trying to smear any notion of liberalism. Used to be it was the facists and goosesteppers who were most challenged by the terrible threat liberalism presented. With the neo-con lurch to the right they find themselves similarly terrified of what it represents. This makes sense, after all, it is a rather radical notion:
liberal: “Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” –American Heritage
Nothing strikes more fear into the heart of the modern day Tea Party neo-con than something like that!
D.
—————-
“Long ago, there was a noble word, LIBERAL, which derives from the word FREE. Now a strange thing happened to that word. A man named Hitler made it a term of abuse, a matter of suspicion, because those who were not with him were against him, and liberals had no use for Hitler. And then a man named McCarthy cast the same opprobrium on the word. Indeed, there was a time –a short but dismaying time– when many Americans began to distrust the word which derived from FREE. One thing we must all do. We must cherish and honor the word FREE or it will cease to apply to us.”
–Eleanor Roosevelt
Eleanor is the pot calling the kettle black- there is NO program of FDR’s that I would find to be noteworthy except as it attempts to shred the Constitution- he was a true progressive, as was Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) and Woody Wilson- all of whom believed that they knew better than the Constitution.
Also, the term “Progressive” comes from the turn of the 20th century- but Hilary used this term during the debates, and so it is proper that it be explored for the insidious meaning it truly represents- and that would be that of a traitorous liberal, one who wants to “transform America” into something the progressive elitists believe is THEIR version of Amerika.
I’m confused. So now rich politicians can’t ask for donations to pay down their campaign debt because they can afford to pay it off out of pocket?
Or does this only apply to rich politicians with D’s next to their names? I know Rudy 9iu11ani had a net worth of somewhere between $18 and $70 million yet he was taking donations to pay off his multi-million dollar debts for the primary. The Clintons finished about $20 million in the hole and have been digging out ever since. The nerve of them to ask for political donations to pay off their political campaign debts…
And Bill Clinton is hardly a progressive, by the way. But you don’t know much about progressives anyway, do you? To you progressive is just a generic term for a liberal or a Democrat you can’t stand.
Any wealthy politician who asks others to keep giving to settle debt is wrong. Does pointing out that someone else did it make it OK? Did Rudy raffle himself off?
Here is where I am having trouble Adam. You say that rich people should pay more taxes so that we can redistribute (call it what you wish) that money to those who pay little or no taxes and you scoff at the idea that everyone earning money should pay taxes and your rationale is that the rich can afford it (as if it is your decision to make).
But when I say the Clintons are rich enough to pay their own bills and that they should not be begging for money when they have over 100 million dollars you say the po folks should foot the bill for the rich folks. Maybe rich people should have raffles to make others pay taxes…
And progressives are people who espouse views that progress toward socialism and then communism. That is what they are progressing toward. No, progressive is not a different name for liberal.
“Any wealthy politician who asks others to keep giving to settle debt is wrong.”
Alright, but if it’s happening on both sides why is it “typical of progressives” then?
“…you scoff at the idea that everyone earning money should pay taxes and your rationale is that the rich can afford it (as if it is your decision to make).”
I don’t scoff at that. Everybody pays taxes. You’re the one who thinks some don’t, as Darrel mentions below. The rich can afford it. The rich have enormous purchasing power and leverage which wouldn’t be affected by a few points increase in tax rates. Now the middle and working classes on the other hand? The middle class creates the jobs, despite what you often say. The working class? Well, they work. But sure, we could do it your way where we take the tax burden off of the very wealthy in America and we shoulder it evenly on all folks at a flat rate. That would just be awesome, let me tell you…
“Maybe rich people should have raffles to make others pay taxes…”
See, this is why your post is kind of silly. This is not taxes and this is not personal spending. It was a political campaign. They use political donations during the campaign, why can’t they use political donations after it? It doesn’t make sense.
“And progressives are people who espouse views that progress toward socialism and then communism.”
More short-sighted nonsense. Maybe Porretto can enlighten us with a 4000 word comment on your attack label of the week. Choose from this list: leftists, liberals, statists, socialists, marxists, communists, fascists, nazis. Which word best describes your ignorant view of progressives this week? Can you give us a hint as to what it will be next week?
There are “progressive” Republicans also- McCain and Graham come to mind.
BLK: “There are “progressive” Republicans also- McCain and Graham come to mind.”>>
DAR
Graham “has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 89.79. Graham is an ACU “Senate Standout,” among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008!”
Link.
Blake is so far to the unglued right he would like to purge the party of anything less than the top 10% most extreme nose bleed conservative. I truly wish him and his the very best in this effort. Once they are successful perhaps they can then hold the republican party convention at a Holiday Inn in Oklahoma.
The Tea Partiers are the GOP’s Naderites. Chances are this won’t dawn upon them until they get three more election spankings. A little good luck in the next one will only serve to encourage them to be even more silly in the following two.
D.
——————
More Americans Want Democrats To Control Congress (POLL) (May 7-11)
“People want Democrats to control Congress after this fall’s elections, a shift from April, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released Saturday…
The tenuous 45 percent to 40 percent preference for a Democratic Congress reverses the finding a month ago on the same question: 44 percent for Republicans and 41 percent for Democrats.”
Congressional Democratic approval: 37%
Congressional Republican approval: 31%
Oh yes, a poll to help the Dems when things are getting desperate. They will get creamed in November. Tuesday should be a good indication.
Bigd: “47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes”>>
DAR
One of Bigd’s favorite whoppers. Adam has knocked this down so many times he doesn’t even bother anymore. I have too. It’s just Bigd transparently playing word games while getting the math wrong.
Of the Top Ten Republican Lies about Taxes, this one comes in number three.
Check those out. Learn some new ones eh?
D.
————-
“Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.”
“The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts,” –Michael Ettlinger
No wonder the Tea Partiers are so angry!
Idiots.
Neither Adam nor you have knocked this down and neither does your link. Darrel, you really are good at the Alinsky redirection, misquotes and pretend knowledge.
Fact: 47% of wage earners pay no FEDERAL income taxes. Notice the word FEDERAL. You source uses the words income taxes which would include other sources.
In fact, your source lies when it says that Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans since he can only deal with federal taxes he had no impact on state. Since 47% of people pay no FEDERAL income taxes he did not cut anything for them. He did not cut the tax rate. He merely gave some tax credits which are not tax cuts.
Notice that CNN reported this and it came from the Tax Policy Center.
So how exactly has Adam shot this down?
You blurb at the end is incorrect. Even if state and local taxes were lower, Obama could not claim credit.
Second, he did not cut any taxes. Tax credits do not count as a tax cut. Using give aways of taxpayer money in Cash for Clunkers, home buyer credits, raised EIC and other CREDITS are not tax cuts. Im many cases people who PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME taxes received this money. You cannot cut something if there is nothing to cut.
And the tax rate will be lower if millions of people are unemployed.
“So how exactly has Adam shot this down?”
Your argument changes over time. Sometimes you have said “such and such percent pay no taxes” or “such and such percent pay no federal taxes” and neither of those are true which is what I’ve pointed out over time. You’re getting more and more accurate when you say a good chunk pay no federal income taxes. In the end though your argument is essentially that these folks are freeloaders. The reality is they pay taxes too. They just don’t pay as high of taxes or the same kind as you and I because they don’t make enough money.
Adam, you seem to make the mistake that because it is happening on both sides that it means conservatives and progressives. The example you gave of Rudy is not good for you. Rudy is a progressive.
It is typical of progressives.
That is why I did not say typical of Democrats. Republicans can be progressives too and many are.
“Republicans can be progressives too and many are.”
Many are? Including Rudy 911? Don’t kid yourself. Abraham Lincoln could have been a progressive. Teddy Roosevelt could have been a progressive. Rudy 911 is not a progressive.
Supporting a few things common to the progressive movement doesn’t make him a progressive any more than my support for a few conservative ideas makes me a conservative.
Teddy Roosevelt WAS a progressive- Rudy is borderline, Lindsey Graham is rabidly (for a Republican) progressive.
The people we need will be for smaller government, and STRICT Constitutional principles, and what is good for the country, rather than some elitist east or west coast chardonnay sippers.
When we are talking about federal taxes and federal programs it is assumed that people know we are discussing those things. When you discuss welfare programs and then I say they pay no taxes to support them then it is assumed we are talking about federal taxes since federal taxes pay for those things.
How is it untrue when I say that 47% of people pay no federal taxes? You and Darrel like to say that SS and Medicare are taxes so they pay taxes. Those two taxes are supposed to be dedicated to the benefits that those who pay in will receive. We know that in reality the money is wasted by government but the people who pay them are paying in for a later benefit.
The income tax, which is what we are discussing when we talk about things other than SS or Medicare, are not paid by those who receive the most benefits from government.
This has been shown time and again using Treasury numbers and non partisan analysis but you refuse to believe it. It is also true that many people get money even though they paid no income taxes. That is redistribution of income.
I know you have trouble with this because it dispels your liberal foundation but it is reality.
Most of the people who pay no taxes or get money back after paying no taxes but who receive government benefits are freeloaders.
Freeloader:
to impose upon another’s generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved.
One can debate whether forced taxation is generosity in the purest sense of the word but there is no doubt people are living off others without contributing.
“How is it untrue when I say that 47% of people pay no federal taxes? You and Darrel like to say that SS and Medicare are taxes so they pay taxes.”
Payroll taxes…are taxes. I don’t know why you think you can leave those off. About 47% pay no taxes on income. Only a little over 13% pay no taxes on income or payroll taxes.
“Most of the people who pay no taxes or get money back after paying no taxes but who receive government benefits are freeloaders.”
Even if I accepted that definition the number is small. It’s certainly not 47%. The vast majority of Americans pay federal taxes. That is the truth. It has nothing to do with “liberal foundation” but you’ve taken to suggesting that lately without it really meaning anything.
Bigd’s dishonesty and spin is just pungent here.
I’ll use myself as an example. I pay about $1,000 a month in Federal taxes based upon my income. Less than 1/4 of that goes in the technical category of “Federal income taxes.”
The rest goes in the box of “self-employment tax” or alternately “SS” or “medicare tax” or “payroll tax.” All of these categories are federal taxes, based upon my income, and they all go in the same Federal tax box (because of the shell game) which Bigd acknowledges he is aware of above.
Bigd probably prides himself on being a straight talking honest person but on this topic, for some reason he is being completely and purposefully misleading, that is just, plain, dishonest.
And of course the 47% number is just ludicrous even by wingnut standards.
D.
——————-
“…at most about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes.” –Adam’s link
Rudy is a progressive who pretends to be a conservative.
Former New York governor Mario Cuomo, a liberal icon, put it this way: “(Giuliani’s) basically very pragmatic. And he’s progressive. He is not a Neanderthal, a primitive conservative. But look, he’s a clever human being. He can shave and draw fine distinctions when he needs to.”
Link
Well, you’re both wrong. On The Issues puts it this way: Rudy Giuliani is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative. There’s going to be overlap on the issues with most politicians but calling Giuliani a progressive is a huge stretch.
We will just have to agree to disagree.
And how can you use that source when progressive is not one of the outcomes?
So do you think it’s possible to be conservative and progressive?
I think if progressive were an option he might fit there better, depending upon the criteria used.
As for your tax information the source talks about payroll taxes. There are 2 kinds, the one the employee pays and the one the employer pays for the employee. Since the employer pays the employer part we cannot attribute that to the employee.
It is true that a lot of the people discussed have payroll taxes withheld. That is not the same as paying taxes. When it comes time to file they get ALL of it back and in many cases they get more than what they paid in back.
Since we are specifically talking about federal taxes (and that is what the report discussed) it is disingenuous for you and those you link to to say that no, 47% is not true because they pay state and local taxes or taxes on investments.
We are discussing the federal income tax, not the payroll tax. All people pay into Social Security and Medicare (which are part of payroll taxes) and do not get them back at the end of the year. These people will get that back when they are old enough to collect. Rich people night not be eligible because they make too much in retirement to collect.
You are playing games with the numbers and the report. 47% of people pay no federal income taxes and if you look at the Treasury numbers you will see that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3% of the total federal income taxes paid.
You all can keep moving the goalposts but the reality is, these people pay no federal income taxes. Quit parsing with the payroll, state, local, blah, blah.
However, I would be happy to ONLY pay SS, Medicare and taxes on my investments.
“Quit parsing with the payroll, state, local, blah, blah.”
Stop leaving out important words then. When you say 47% of people pay no federal income taxes (which was your first statement in the post) you are correct. When you leave off the word income (as you did in a comment above), or you simply say “pay no taxes” (as you’ve done in the past) then you’re wrong. Every American pays taxes and the vast majority of Americans pay federal taxes.
Funny how the definition of “having skin in the game” always has to be so narrowed and cut down to make your case and to accuse folks of freeloading.
Adam,
When we discuss taxes we are talking about income taxes and not taxes dedicated to special programs like SS and Medicare. You added those to the mix to try and refute the reality that 47% of people pay no federal income taxes.
SS and Medicare are not income taxes, they are payroll taxes dedicated (supposedly) to programs that will pay people back for the investment.
When we say pay no taxes while discussing federal income taxes (and THAT is what we have always been discussing) then you should realize that this is what is being discussed.
You are throwing barriers to deflect from the truth that 47% of people pay no federal income taxes. This is not the vast majority. The bottom 50% of earners pay 3% of all federal taxes. The top 20% pay nearly all the taxes.
Once again, we are discussing federal income taxes.
And this of course means that a lot of people are not patriotic, according to Joe Biden.
“I think if progressive were an option he might fit there better, depending upon the criteria used.”
Only if the criteria was not the criteria that makes one a progressive. The four corners are good enough. Giuliani leans toward libertarian and conservative. It’s not like a progressive has to be hard left and deep populist but the truth is you’re not going to find too many progressives supporting individual liberties over the rights of the group while espousing conservative values over liberal. It’s just a combination that doesn’t match. Giuliani is not a progressive.
Rudy is progressive and was once a liberal Democrat.
Once again, you folks have trouble placing things in their proper order. The fact that the government has not taken SS and Medicare and dedicated it for those programs does not mean we can claim that these folks pay federal income taxes for the general fund. Those monies might go to the general fund (in the shell game) but that fact is only a quirk of the corruption in DC and not because the wage earners are paying regular federal income taxes. If it made no difference then they would not be separated on your pay stub.
Federal taxes, SS, Medicare, all different tax categories. The federal tax is what we are discussing.
And let’s face it people, none of us are going to see a dime of SS, and little in Medicare- what we SHOULD do is keep paying those who are already getting it, but call it what it is – a FAILED Socialist program, and terminate it, rather than lie to the people who are now paying in- allow them to put their money somewhere else- eliminate the income tax, and have everyone pay a flat 11% tax, no loopholes for anyone.
Yes Darrel, give us the dictionary definition of the word liberal rather than the political definition of what it actually involves.