Nice letter!  When the pigs start flying around Iowa is when Tod will actually get a response from the Shrillary camp.  She's a manupilative, cold woman who will say or do anything to get what she wants.  How in the hell the women of Iowa or ANYWHERE can vote for someone who says "I'm not playing the gender card" and then proceeds to blather about how 95 year old women are coming up to her and telling her how proud they are to vote for the first woman for President...she's utterly shameless!!!  Oh...and nice job stacking the audience with your supporters last night so they could Boo the other candidates...very "Presidential" of you...well if you're George BUSH! CNN and your buddy Murdoch have anything to do with that???

Social Security:
In last night’s Las Vegas debate Hillary made a great remark that says a lot about her love for misrepresenting the facts and misleading voters, namely that funding social security by boosting “taxes on Americans making more than $97,500 a year…would amount to a $1-trillion tax on middle- income Americans and seniors” and that SHE “would not balance social security on the backs of middle class Americans.”
(1)As Barack Obama said, only 6% of Americans make more than $97,500 per year, and that top 6% of the population is NOT the middle class. So this tax is not aimed at the middle class or seniors and, therefore, social security would NOT be “balanced on their backs.” Hillary is just throwing that incendiary grenade at voters to scare them.
(2)Obama NEVER said anything about a $1-trillion dollar tax increase – that was Hillary’s claim. Obama was clear that his administration would not decide on the exact amount of any tax increase to cover social security until they exhausted options to get the money from savings in other government spending.
(3)Hillary said that she is against increasing taxes on the wealthiest 6% of the population to fund social security, because she “represents” that segment of the population. (Watch the debate on CNN and listen to that comment for yourself.)
So basically, as Obama said, taxes will NOT be raised on the middle class (only on the richest 6% of the population) to pay for social security, but seniors and future generations of the middle class (and poor) will benefit by having access to social security when they retire. By using the loaded accusation that Obama is “balancing social security on the backs of the middle class and seniors” Hillary Clinton is misrepresenting the facts to make the middle class think that they will be bearing the tax increase, to scare the middle class and seniors into voting against something (and someone – Obama) that will benefit them. In case you weren’t paying attention, Hillary Clinton just said she won’t tax the richest 6% of our population a LITTLE bit more to keep social security solvent. All you baby boomers out there should be very afraid of Hillary Clinton. There are a lot of programs to fund (e.g. healthcare, social security), and there is only so much savings that the next president is going to be able to suck out of existing spending, so it’s likely that some sort of tax increase may be required.  Hillary Clinton basically just said that she only represents the top 6% of the population (NOT the middle class) and she’s not going to increase taxes on them to help seniors who can’t make ends meet. Despite what she may say to the contrary, Hillary Clinton does not stand for the average worker, on healthcare or social security. Gee, using the tax man scare tactic to get everyone all riled up and refusing to increase taxes on the rich…sounds very republican to me. Maybe John Edwards is right – if we nominate Hillary, we’d just be switching a corporate democrat for a corporate republican.

My fellow voters, you just keep letting republicans scare you with all their tax scaremongering. Of course we don’t want excessive taxes, but haven’t you noticed that the republicans are fine with spending like drunken sailors as long as the money does not benefit the average American? If it goes to corporate welfare programs, they’re fine. If $10 billion per month goes to a war in Iraq we don’t need to be in, you don’t hear a peep out of them, but if you dare to say that taxpayer money should actually go to programs that benefit taxpayers, then HOLD ON, the republicans will start screaming “that’s SOCIALISM”! The republicans are all about making the rich richer and fighting wars we don’t need to be in, but God forbid that taxpayer money actually be used on taxpayers – then the republican scaremongering begins about taxes, taxes, taxes! They are soooo full of it.

Actually, I think the republicans have been quite brilliant about this. They have managed to convince American taxpayers that their own tax dollars should NOT be used to fund programs that benefit taxpayers. The republicans have got this whole brainwashing thing down pat!

Clinton is correct on this issue.

barak obviously missed SS 101.
If you start taking SS taxes by raising the cap level,you have to pay those people more SS when they retire.

If you creat a gap, then tax above that gap at 1%, you don't have to pay that out.

really, Barak isnot ready for prime time.


*If you don't understand this, you have no idea how SS works

Nobody who thinks the richest six percent of the public is the middle class deserves to be the Democratic nominee; there's already going to be a Republican to represent that point of view on the ballot next year, and it would be nice to have an alternative.

appearently, all the Obamaites know he didn't do well last night

Now that Bill is out raking in the money from speaking engagements she believes $97,000.00 is middle class in America.


"What color is the sky in her world"

She suggested that popping the cap would hurt middle-class Americans and argued that in some parts of the nation (namely high-priced New York City which she represents) $97,500 isn't a lot of money. It would be interesting to hear her make that argument in Audubon County, Iowa, where the average home is worth half that much: $49,000.


Seems like a Bush 41 moment

Why is it so hard for people to understand. We live in a consumer driven economy. The more money in peoples pockets, the more they spend. Tax breaks are wasted on the lowest income levels. If you make less than $50,000.00 and have a family you pay very little in taxs anyway. People that make between $100,000.00 and 300,000.00 have the ability to spend more and do. Which create jobs and sales tax reciepts. The mega rich (which include all of the Pres candidates) have the ability to seek out tax shelters. Which is ok if the shelters create jobs and thus more tax reciepts. If you need to raise ss taxs ok. Leave as much money in the hands of the consumer as possible. I promise the govt will get their hands on the lions share some where down the road...

You know, something like this needs to be front page news. The media blasted John Kerry for his flip flopping and is seemingly giving Hillary a pass on it today. Put this at the top of the pile of First Read and let's start discussing why this is.

Obama needs to hit her hard on this point. Let them see that it isn't just Social Security that she has no real position on, but illegal immigration, Middle East diplomacy, etc. Put it out there en masse that she has no real clue what she is doing or saying from one day to the next and in some cases, one event to the next.

We all know that Clinton is not going to answer the question. She is not going to fix the problem but rather defer it to the future generation.

The Bowman letter appears to be a voter's plea to a question which many might want an answer to. What amazes me is that politicians today seem not to care that much about those individualized questions/answers but seem to be more concerned about a national view or to say and do what is, for the moment, what they perceive too be the winning strategy. I am a proud Obama supporter and am pleased that Senator Obama has let us know where he stands on the issues On the other hand, Senator Clinton appears to be a seasoned Washington insider who knows the game and how to play it. Such people might not be what America needs as we enter the era of new and serious challenges which will take all of us working and striving together to come up strategies designed to bring us together rather than isolate and divide us.

I think i am going to gain some weight today. I went and bought a box of pop corn. I think  i am going to need it today. I just grab my first bag and open my pop. It is going to be so fun to watch all the rage and cry for fault troughout the day. A lot of fun

Clinton's fix is the right thing!  And for those stating $97K is not middle class, maybe in the backwoods of your hick state that's some serious money, but here in NY, its not enough to buy a house.  

Well I really loved Hillary's answer to fixing Social Security......

Went back five times on TIVO and still could not find her answer.......

What say you Senator Clinton?
Can you come up with a position on Social Security unlike your five positions on Drivers Licenses for illegal aliens???????????

I am loving the class acts here today fully displaying their objectivity and even-handedness.

I even have to agree with one of Thieme's alter-egos (fun watcher) on this one...


Van

Social Security needs to be curtailed & ultimately phased out. We can no longer afford it.

Who in here has done research on Obama's positions on Social Security? Why are we employing hypocrisy in dealing with candidates?

Even First Read? As a journalist, you must present both sides and not misrepresent the fact.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both didnt have much difference on Social Security.

Senator Obama said on Oct 27th from his campaign release, that he will not increase the cap. He said the same thing during his AP interview few months back. Now Senator Obama is saying he will increase the cap.

Why double standards? We should all be principled as a voter.

You Obamaites are amusing.  On Meet the Press this past Sunday, Saint Barack said that, while he favored raising taxes over cutting benefits or raising the retirement age, he would turn the whole issue over to a commission if he's elected.  It's exactly the same position as Sen. Clinton--except he foolishly positions himself as a big tax raiser.  Of course, when Saint Barack contradicts himself, that's OK because, well, he's Saint Barack.

Most techies in the Bay Area get 110-110K as base salaries. Why tax them when they are working hard to get money and still unable to afford any housing here?

Is working hard and long hrs like 16 hrs a day, a sin?

Obama, Michelle got a jump from 80K to 300K because you stood for President. That's called easy money. Please tax the people who get easy money.

Jerry- the only thing shocking in your posts...that you know how to use TiVo!  Everything else - predictable poo!

always thought obama was a republican running as a democrat...his socialsecurity "plan" proves it

Jerry- the only thing shocking in your posts...that you know how to use TiVo!

Pat:

I am a man of many talents.....
I can also catch a liberal female presidential candidate who doesn't tell the whole truth....

We all know social security is broken and that is the dirtiest secret in Washington today. They all know it including Madam Clinton but she will not recommend a solution that can fix it.

More of the same cannot get us any where.

Hillary's dishonesty on this issue is something that will come to bite her in IOWA and ultimately in NH.

She and Bill made more than $10 million last year but would rather keep spending the SS fund on war that should have never been authorized.

If Obama is willing to pay more from his pocket to SS, why can’t she do the same thing?  She would rather defer the problem to Chelsea Clinton to solve and use politics of triangulation and evasiveness to get away with it.

After his performance at the debate last night, perhaps he should focus on a debate coach.

Hillary Clinton's plan: "Form a bipartisan commission"... she wants to get together all the Republicans, cause she's a great uniter.  Except we also need to TURN UP THE HEAT on Republicans, cause she's also the great fighter agaisnt Republicans.  Both ways.

The question is what makes the money you make earn over 97k untouchable as far as SS in concerned? It should be graduated downward from a taxation standpoint, but not completeley exempt. JMHO.

To me big city living has fogged the minds of the people living there. how can 100,000 plus be middle class when major portion of population has income under 50,000. You all chose to live in high price area's making the prices stay high by doing so. Why not leave the big city life like so many of us have.
Find life is much more relaxing making 20,000 than I did making 90,000. I even have time and money to take trips when I want to.
At rate things going only the rich will be buying soon as the low 2/3 might not have enough money to survive. T?hen who you going to tax???
think we need a straight tax on all income paid by everyone,no exemptions and needs to be a percentage so everyone pays the same tax..

"After his performance at the debate last night, perhaps he should focus on a debate coach."

He should swap parties, and relieve himself of the burden of trying not to trip over democrat party lies.

Pat from NY,

You just proved why no NE candidate will ever win the presidency again.

$97K is a lot here in the Minneapolis,MN area (a backwoods hick area, I guess).

See Iowa voters, Pat's comment is what Clinton thinks of you and me.

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards '08

Thanks!

to me senator clinton is not going to change anything in this great country ,sinple because she was part of the first clinton administration for 2 term ,guess what i was in africa then , we had grat hope in america foreign policy for africa ,because we are affected by what america do with ou leaders in africa ,to my surprise ,they maintened their support to dictactors and those leaders who tried to be good were turn to be dictators under their watch and they kept good touch with them ,like the ugandan president who was a beacon of hope ,who has managed to get life presidency in uganda ,like a guy in rwanda who is running a police state and are very good friends of the clinton clan, you see the issue is there are group of people in the world who have selected themself to globalise in their on way ,if it`s not the clinton , it`s the kabila , the eyademas ,the bushes, and we call this democratie , where us the voters we are allowing empire to be build under our nose in the name of democracy, the democrat should get something else than a clinton, at least for hope of change and oportunities for every one

See Iowa voters, Pat's comment is what Clinton thinks of you and me.

Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards '08

Thanks!
Jesse, Burnsville, MINNESOTA (Sent Friday, November 16, 2007 1:01 PM)

-------------
What the heck are you talking about?  All I was saying is that $97,000 is still middle class and not in the class of being rich! That's true no matter where you live my dear.  And don't put words in my mouth that were not written.  Piss off girly!

Tuck,

Obama is a true Democrat.  Republicans would never agree to raise the Social Security Tax, so I don't know how you can figure that makes him like a Republican.  As for your comment earlier, just because you raise the Social Security tax for the wealthy, doesn't mean you will increase the cap on their benefits.  

Obama's position on this issue is that he realizes that fiscal responsibility is not going to be enough to save Social Security.  He has refused to say that any option is off the table, but that he will advocate for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans (who are paying lower tax rates).  He has also suggested that a gap between 100k and 200k may be a good idea that he would consider.  

As it has been on so many issues, his position is truthful and courageous.  He takes the hard positions of a leader and that's what America needs.  He knows that no one really wants to pay higher taxes, and that the Republicans will fight hard on this issue.  He knows that his Democratic constituents don't want the hard truth that the retirement age might need to be raised again.  He is not hiding behind a future bipartisan committee to obscure how he thinks it should be done, as Hillary is.  She knows that whatever position you take, it will not be popular.  But sometimes leadership is about more than telling people what they want to hear.  This country has a lot of tough challenges to face, and we are all going to have to sacrifice.  Obama is willing to ask us to get real about the problems we face, Hillary like doesn't have the inner strength to be honest with the voters.  And if she were to become President, she won't have the stength to fight to get the country back on track.  I'm not even sure that is her intention.

I'll agree to phased out SS when: (1) I'm returned every penny I invested; and (2) Congress cancels THEIR pensions.
What's good for the goose.....

It was sad to see Sen. Clinton justify her claims that $100,000 / year is a middle class income by claiming that firefighters make that - she showed me how out of touch with reality she is:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Fire_Fighter/Salary

Real easy to say Iowa.  But what if you were born into a high priced state or city, maybe even b/4 it BECAME high priced - perhaps even inherited a home or bought it way back when costs were lower - and now you CAN'T leave, as you've kids established school and the housing market's a bust - and perhaps even you're lucky enough that your local economy will at least support the prices in your city - so I have an $80,000 salary, but a couple of kids and a $1,000 mtg (not incl fuel, food, etc), that kinda evens out to your $40,000, especially when I PAY THE SAME PERCENTAGE TAXES YOU DO

Well Pat NY, the point is, is that $97,500 IS a lot of money in IA, MN and the rest of the country.  If you and Hillary think $97,500 is middle class, maybe Hillary should stay as Senator and fight for you in NY.  Me, I want somebody who also understands what $0-75k means for the rest of us.

By the way, you are the one that labeled the rest of the country "backwoods" and "hicks".  That NY elitist attitude doesn't fly for this midwestern Democrat.

Also, don't patronize me with your "dear" comment.  You are flat wrong.  A $97,500 salary is not middle class everywhere and just shows how out of touch you are with the rest of the country.

Edwards/Obama and Obama/Edward '08

For details to argue their position, please go back to Tim's Meet the Press, very clear. My impression of Obama last night was not positive, he looks like waiting for opportunity to attack Hillary instead of forcusing the questions he was asked.

From the latest SUSA poll in Iowa:

"Clinton leads Giuliani 47% to 43%, Romney 49% to 43%, and Huckabee 49% to 43%. But she trails McCain 48% to 44%.
Obama is remarkably stronger. He has a double-digit lead against Giuliani (52-39), Romney (53-39) and Huckabee (56-35) and even wins against McCain outside of the margin of the error (50-42)."

Bipartisanship, electability, a NEW kind of leadership...
BARACK OBAMA '08!

pat huntington ny: '...Clinton's fix is the right thing!  And for those stating $97K is not middle class, maybe in the backwoods of your hick state that's some serious money, but here in NY, its not enough to buy a house...'

The TOP 6% of the income scale IS NOT MIDDLE CLASS
Calling the top 6% of income aerners middle class is Clintonesque

Hillary is sounding more and more like a Republican
(depending on the audience)

All Barack is asking is for high income earners to pay the same percent of their income and the middle class !!  

Google, Palo Alto, CA: '...Most techies in the Bay Area get 110-110K as base salaries. Why tax them when they are working hard to get money and still unable to afford any housing here?...'

It depends how you define 'most techies'
I used to be a techie in the Bay Area and bought a house in SF without earning 97K a year.
In the Bay Area, $97,500 is still upper income.

Pay 6% on 110K instead of 97K.
It doesn't sound like a real sacrifice
6% of 13K is $780 or $65 a month
To save Social Security ?
Buy one less latte a day ....
How hard is that, Google ?

Tuck, Realityville, KS: '...barak obviously missed SS 101...'

And Hillary missed Honesty 1A
Her campaign is based upon 'plausible deniability'
Maybe nobody will remember what she says

'...If you start taking SS taxes by raising the cap level,you have to pay those people more SS when they retire...'

NO YOU DON'T !!
YOU don't understand SS law !

'...*If you don't understand this, you have no idea how SS works...'

WRONG, AS usual Shuck, unRealityville
Re-take that SS 101 class
(you might even want to take the Honesty class, too)


Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandals and divisiveness

Sierra, SF, my dear, I make slightly above the $97K mark, and guess what, I am middle class...definitely not rich. I live in a small townhouse, drive a 5 year old car, commute 3 hours a day to my NY State govt job, take one vacation a year, nothing extravagent, eat out occasionally, dress in ordinary clothes...do I sound rich to you?  No. It's not Clintonesque...its reality my dear...

Wonderful article.  These are the sorts of issues we need to be looking at.  there is a problem with Senator Clinton's refusal to directly answer questions.  She just triangulates, and triangulates. . .

Regardless, thanks MSNBC, for actually giving us indepth coverage.  I am actually boycotting Clinton News Network[CNN] as a result of last nights debate.  I can't believe they used Clinton supporters and staffers[Carville and Gergen] as debate "analysts."  Good grief.

I have been a promoter of increasing the amount taxed for a longtime, and was super impressed when Obama brought it up.  I make over the $97000 SS cut-off, but will support the candidate that wants to tax all income earned, especially the sports and entertainment high rollers.  If some one makes $20 million, tax it all!  There is no reason to change the amount paid at retirement age for the larger payment of SS taxes.  Just caulk it up to a contribution to the USA for giving them the opportunity to be in the top 6%.

This one registered New Hampshire Republican who someone president who will walk the talk.

Sierra,SF: Thank you.  You are completely right in your response to the idiot called Tuck.  I am a CPA and do understand SS law and you are correct.  It's tiring to constantly refute this Tuck.  So, let's turn the tables: Hey, Tuck: the sky is purple polka-dots!

"Its time to believe America CAN again"

Barak Obama 11/15/07

realy who pays atention to tuck , Hes been proven a liar over and over again.

Bill, Brentwood New Hampshire --- I make over the $97000 SS cut-off, but will support the candidate that wants to tax all income earned, especially the sports and entertainment high rollers. ---

Bill! Be the first on your block to write a check for extra amount you'll owe and send it to the IRS! They'll be pleased, you'll feel good, and maybe you can convince all your rich friends to do the same.

Until then, there are some of us out here that believe the solution to the SS mess is not to give more money to the ones that screwed it up in the first place.

It is comical to read about what people think "The Middle Class" is/isn't. Here's news. If you have a job, the Democrats think you are "The Evil Rich". If you don't have job, or are an illegal alien, or you are an Affected Class, then the Democrats think "You are a Victim of the Evil Rich". You can figure out whose going to be affected by the Democrats raising taxes using this handy guide.

OBAMA '08!!!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):