General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobert Reich: Americans need to know where Dems stand on inequality-not size of their bank accounts.
Robert Reich
1 hr ·
Speaking yesterday at a White House summit on financial difficulties facing working families, Vice President Joe Biden said he has no savings accounts and doesnt own a single stock or bond. On Saturday, Hillary Clinton, in response to a question about whether Americans will see her and her husbands wealth as part of the problem in a time of rising inequality, said she was not like the truly well off who fail to pay their full income taxes, and she became wealthy through hard work. Two weeks ago said she and her husband were dead broke when they left the White House. I wish Democrats eyeing the presidency in 2016 would talk less about their own finances and more about what theyd do to reverse rising inequality if elected. Specifically, would they (1) raise taxes on the rich to their pre-Reagan levels? (2) close giant loopholes the wealthy have arranged such as carried interest for hedge-fund and private-equity partners? (3) increase the minimum wage to a living wage? (4) expand the Earned Income Tax Credit? and (5) exempt the first $15,000 of income from the Social Security tax while eliminating the cap on income subject to it? Americans need to know where Democrats stand on inequality, not the size of their bank accounts.
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich?fref=nf
daleanime
(17,796 posts)focus on issues not distractions.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)of caring for the concerns of working people.
Joe Biden was the Senate sponsor of the Bankruptcy "reform" act of 2005, which introduced the so-called "means test" to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, forcing broke people to pay more to creditors. I guess he was just working for his "constituents" (banks incorporated in Delaware.)
If Joe has no savings, it's only because he already spent the 30 pieces of silver...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)take away federal bankruptcy protections from working people who are being squeezed bone-dry. But do it, he did. And it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't given it his blessing. Sad, but true.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)how our MSM and politicians manage to get through entire campaigns without having to clearly state their policy agendas and what they will do for voters.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Beacool
(30,257 posts)They are responding to reporters' questions.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The purchased media typically assists politicians in avoiding such discussions.
That's clearly the important point here, don't you think?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)no dice, fuckers.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)People who eat maybe one meal a day don't want to hear how you were "dead broke". You and Bill go all Morgan Spurlock and live on 7.25 an hour for a couple of months then maybe we'll listen.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Interesting....Robert Reich butchered Hillary's quote down to three words too
flpoljunkie
(26,184 posts)"But they don't see me as part of the problem," she protests, "because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work," she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.
CNN's false quote fits with the interpretation that many in the media have made, which is that Clinton was contrasting herself with the "truly well off."
A headline from The Week:
Hillary Clinton Explains How She and Bill Aren't 'Truly Well Off'
And Mediaite:
Hillary Clinton: We're Not 'Truly Well Off'
But at least as good an interpretation of the quote is that Clinton included herself and her husband among the "truly well off," but was saying that unlike many of them, they pay ordinary income tax.
During the 2012 campaign, Mitt and Ann Romney came under scrutiny for taking most of their income as capital gains and dividends, therefore paying a much lower tax rate of 14 percent.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/23/cnn-misquotes-hillary-clinton-saying-shes-not-t/199840
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)and I still say you can read it both ways
and Robert caught it too otherwise he wouldn't have commented on it.
Hekate
(91,477 posts)I don't begrudge them their good fortune. They need to tell us what their plan is for helping the rest of us, though, if they want to be POTUS.
BTW, in order to even be in the running for POTUS a prospective candidate has to have amassed a lot of money, his/her own or someone else's. That's just reality.
Thank you Robert Reich.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)...Clintons say given that they came into power through the corporate DLC, removed financial regulation (such as it was) by ending Glass-Seagal, gave us Geithner and Summers, and pal around on golf courses with GW, lending him a friendly legitimacy.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)Rod Beauvex
(564 posts)I had this glorious mental image of Steven Seagal enforcing bank regulations.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)
Our politics are becoming sickeningly divorced from actual issues and the idea that politicians owe voters a clear explanation of how they will represent their interests.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,795 posts)Thanks for the thread, kpete.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)anything substantial about any of them.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Makes your words seem less than genuine.
There really is no way around this. If you are saying you want to reduce inequality while massing more wealth than any one person needs for 3 lifetimes, or making more in one year than most people live on for 2 decades, it comes off and just saying whatever it takes to gain their favor.
Its like preaching about climate change then going out to your SUV and setting fire to a pile of tires as you leave.
And no matter how much anyone says it doesn't matter, in the view of most people it matters. When the person saying it doesn't matter is himself a multi-millionaire who also talks about inequality while amassing his unequal wealth that doesn't really help the cause, and just makes him look tone deaf. Preaching about how the 1% need to be knocked down while living firmly entrenched in 1% territory and not taking the steps yourself to address your own inequality just makes you look like a hypocrite.
Want to see a Democratic politician win in a landside? Let somebody like Elizabeth Warren say "My net worth is 14.5 million. That much wealth in one persons hands is just wrong when most people are living paycheck to paycheck. I preach about inequality, I am putting my preaching into action- I am donating everything but $100,000 to charity and from here out when elected will live only off my salary, accepting no favors, special deal or payments from outside interests. I will maintain my savings at no more than $100,000 and donate anything over that to charity and live off my government pension when I retire".
Right now Bernie Sanders is the only one I am aware of who walks the walk as well as talking the talk.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Because Social Security is based on how much you make every year, this would mean 15k less, which means reduced payouts in old age (significantly so for lower income Americans). Or we could increase the payouts for the 15k, but then we lose on funding and starve the program (or force it to go to the general fund, which makes it a target for the Republicans and other Congressional shenanigans).
Also the funding 'vests' at differing rates, the first 9k or so at 90%, would we lose that since that money doesn't exist to be put into the program? Like I said above, think about how this impacts lower income American's, while they'll probably still max out here, the next tier is 35%, that's potentially 5k less a year from that bracket if that's where you fall, which goes up to around 80k, at that point it drops to only 10%. So if we didn't raise the cap, those who max out would get back 1.5k less, while paying 15k less into the program. Unless we go with option 2, but that's another can of worms.
Increase the EITC and raise the personal deduction (double it even), that would go a long way to fix the problem without messing with the complicatedly balanced Social Security program.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)which side you are on.
But as for Biden, how does somebody make $370,000 a year and NOT have a savings account? All the millions he has been paid as a Senator and his net worth is only $350,000??
That doesn't make him working class, it just makes him an idiot with his money.
Either that or very, very generous.
Then again, with a Senator's pension, what does he need savings for?