Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
Mon Dec 21, 2015, 12:23 PM Dec 2015

Hillary Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican policy sprinkled with Third Way politics [View all]

otherwise known as rightwing-lite

Clinton’s no-tax pledge is Republican “starve the beast” policy infused with Third Way politics. It doubles down on the premise that taxes are bad, and insists that they should only ever be raised on other people — no matter what higher taxes on the broader tax base could pay for. By promising to only raise taxes on incomes in the top one or two percent, Clinton is writing off most potential new revenue, and is therefore writing off the possibility of any semblance of a progressive economic agenda. However, by only foreclosing on the possibility of tax increases for 98 percent of Americans, as opposed to the full 100, she feels safe calling herself a progressive because Fox News will call her a class warrior. Sanders, rightly, thinks this claim is ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous because Clinton’s pledge boxes her into policy corners that leave her with no choice but to use creative and regressive tweaks on otherwise good ideas in order to keep her price tags down. Take, for example, her proposed tax credit for caregivers. Clinton’s policy would provide a tax credit of up to $6,000 for families that are taking care of an elderly family member. However, the only way to keep the budgetary costs of such a program down — $1 billion per year, by all available estimates — is by making the credit non-refundable (you can only claim it against existing tax liability, as opposed to a refundable credit, which allows you to have negative liability). Making the credit non-refundable may make it less expensive, but it also makes it useless. As Demos analyst Matt Bruenig explained:http://americablog.com/2015/12/hillary-clinton-no-tax-pledge-republican-policy-third-way-politics.html
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm absolutely and positively NorthCarolina Dec 2015 #1
indeed stupidicus Dec 2015 #7
Blah blah blah Dem2 Dec 2015 #2
oh, that's why you resorted to the "Blah, Blah" defense? stupidicus Dec 2015 #6
Tax increases are unpopular firebrand80 Dec 2015 #3
It's called 'creeping fascism' AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #8
Not raising taxes is facsim? firebrand80 Dec 2015 #9
Creeping fascism AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #14
Saying they are bad is echoing the right wing that the public sector is bad Armstead Dec 2015 #15
She didn't even say taxes were "bad" firebrand80 Dec 2015 #17
yep, that's the story I've been telling for the last decade and a half or more stupidicus Dec 2015 #18
Have you read their website kenfrequed Dec 2015 #13
Did she preface it with "Read my lips..." HoneychildMooseMoss Dec 2015 #16
to who, thirdwayers and their rightwing cousins and supporters? stupidicus Dec 2015 #23
She's actually a realist. She will get both my votes. yeoman6987 Dec 2015 #4
Right wing tax policy has put us tens of trillions into debt AgingAmerican Dec 2015 #10
no real Democratic voter will back Reagan/Bush in 2015 reddread Dec 2015 #5
well, "Democratic voter" has undergone a definition revision stupidicus Dec 2015 #11
pro-corporate laissez faire vs pro-domestic quality of life reddread Dec 2015 #19
that seems to be the choice to be made stupidicus Dec 2015 #20
they dont need convincing reddread Dec 2015 #22
you have a point stupidicus Dec 2015 #24
include a third possibility (second subset?) reddread Dec 2015 #25
Hmm.. kenfrequed Dec 2015 #12
agreed stupidicus Dec 2015 #21
In short, it means she's AGAINST removing the cap on payroll tax for Social Security! cascadiance Dec 2015 #26
it's hard to say with certainty ain't it? stupidicus Dec 2015 #27
Given Obama's original plans of having a two tiered cap (the second at $250k)... cascadiance Dec 2015 #29
Absolutely. Hillary would rather cut Social Security benefits than eliminate/raise the cap. stillwaiting Dec 2015 #28
It's Republican framing and precludes a progressive agenda. Broward Dec 2015 #30
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton’s no-tax ...»Reply #0