Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton is proposing a new tax cut that would give an additional $1,000 a year or more to millions of parents of young children, part of a larger plan for middle-class tax cuts. The new plan would double the child tax credit to $2,000 per child for families with children ages 4 and under. The Democratic presidential nominee also would change the rules so more people with particularly low incomes would benefit, even if they don't owe income taxes. The new Clinton tax break is structured as a refundable tax credit, which delivers the biggest benefits to lower- and middle-class families, including those who owe no income taxes.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

That's a contrast to Trump's child-care plan, which delivers the bulk of its benefit as a deduction, which is worth more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets.

The Trump plan would increase taxes on about eight million families, according to one estimate, because he repeals certain tax benefits particularly for single parents.

The Clinton campaign estimated the cost of the proposal at $150 billion to $200 billion over 10 years and said it would be funded by higher taxes on the wealthy already put forth.

Aides said she eventually wants to expand the tax credit for families with older children, and to make more refundable tax credits available to low-income workers without children.

Clinton has also proposed new tax credits for people with particularly high out-of-pocket, health-care costs and for families caring for parents and grandparents.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Donald just told Melania he wants another tax cu... er, kid when Hillary wins.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 06:49 PM | Reply

I don't know why. Hillary wont get any of her ideas past a Republican filibuster, unless they expand globalization or war.

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:11 PM | Reply

As the article notes, Marco Rubio proposed a similar cut. So, whining rather than reading can be dangerous.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 07:13 PM | Reply

#3 Marco Rubio didn't plan on funding it with tax increases on the wealthy.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@corky:

I'm sure Senator Marco Rubio (thus far leading in 22 straight FL Sen polls, and +7%+ in most recent poll) will find Hillary Clinton to be a pragmatist willing to work together on important issues. :)

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-11 07:17 PM | Reply

#3 How is it you subscribe to the WSJ? The article is behind a paywall.

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:18 PM | Reply

#4

You're right, he planned on funding it by selling Soylent Green made from FL seniors. Two birds with one stone.

But your point being none of it will get done has already been defied by Obama, who had gotten quite a bit done incrementally.

THE List of 386 Obama Accomplishments so far, With Citations

pleasecutthecrap.com

5 Obama Accomplishments & Successes Republicans Have To Pretend Never Happened

www.nationalmemo.com

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 07:24 PM | Reply

#6

I don't. But most people get some number of article free each month at WSJ, NYT, others. You may be an exception. Who knows power the Grays have.

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 07:26 PM | Reply

#8 I haven't read any WSJ articles this month. Can anybody else see the story?

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:33 PM | Reply

I access WSJ via the online portal of my local library (TY tax dollars). Requires a library account and cuts out images occasionally, but it works well enough.

#10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-11 07:37 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#7 Obama was totally sabotaged by the Republicans. He couldn't get single payer, he couldn't get Glass-Steagal re-instated, he couldn't get any of social programs enacted.

All we got was arms deals, Libya, and Syria.

Instead of getting any kind of liberal agenda, we just got a polishing job for various turds. He couldn't even balance the budget.

But he did get open borders! Thanks, Obama.

#11 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:37 PM | Reply

#10 That's the only way you can see it, right?

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:40 PM | Reply

He didn't try to get single payer which was a non starter, nor GS which didn't cover the worst of what happened. And he got plenty of good legislation and Executive actions.... unless 386 = 0 on rwing planet Helium.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 07:42 PM | Reply

GWB put out a tax credit and he was accused of buying votes. Just shameless of him!!

Now it's cool?

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2016-10-11 07:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#12, yeah. I'm on my phone right now and it is paywalled after the first few paragraphs.

#15 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-11 07:47 PM | Reply

#15 I'm starting to think Corky is posting from his office at Correct the Record. I mean, the guy only does Clinton/Trump stories. At least Doc Sarvis actually posts something interesting once in a while.

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-10-11 07:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

copy-paste an address into the first field at archive.is to get around most paywalls.

one can also take a snapshot of a page before it's stealthily edited as well using the same technique.

here ya go for the wsj article.

#17 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2016-10-11 08:50 PM | Reply

Is this a nationalist plan to grow the American population without resorting to immigration?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-11 09:02 PM | Reply

- I'm starting to think

It's never too late for anyone. You could start with the thread topic. Do you agree with this tax proposal?

Or would you like to continue to Deflect about how it isn't possible, you can't read it, and then some whining about me.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 09:23 PM | Reply

GWB put out a tax credit and he was accused of buying votes.

I recall it slightly different, with him being accused of fiduciary malfeasance for slashing taxes during war.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-11 09:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20

You remember wrong. He was doing it to buy votes for his reelection.

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2016-10-11 09:42 PM | Reply

- your supervisors

Thank you for choosing: "Or would you like to continue to Deflect...".

Always nice when someone acknowledges they've been pegged.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-11 10:16 PM | Reply

they've been pegged. POSTED BY CORKY

TMI, get a room you two.
:P

#24 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-11 10:21 PM | Reply

You remember wrong. He was doing it to buy votes for his reelection.
#22 | Posted by eberly

Which was viewed as being fiscally reckless, even by some sensible right-wingers, probably including yourself.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-11 10:39 PM | Reply

-paid shills.

It's so funny when someone "thinks" it takes a professional of some kind to call out their deflective BS on a thread.

It doesn't.

#27

www.youtube.com

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-12 12:16 AM | Reply

-See he wont

Address the thread topic, just make asinine claims. No one gets paid to post here. Ask Rogers.

Of course, squeaky voiced rats and punch drunk possums might have some difficulty figuring that out for themselves.

They should though, or admit they are just deflecting from the thread topic because they don't want people supporting anything Clinton proposes.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-12 01:23 AM | Reply

Hillary wants to put money into the pockets of families, Trump wants to cut taxes for the rich.
Both are talking about tax cuts to get votes. Hillary is appealing to people that want to help families, Trump wants to help the rich.

The contrast is stark.

#32 | Posted by bored at 2016-10-12 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#32 Bored: "Both are talking about tax cuts to get votes."

Yep. Pandering at its best.

"The contrast is stark."

Neither of them, nor their parties, are doing anything that could be called 'fiscal responsibility'. We're almost $20 trillion in debt, ignoring all the unfunded liabilities, and they are all kicking the Clinton-Bush-Obama can farther down the road.

#33 | Posted by AKat at 2016-10-12 03:18 PM | Reply

Trump's plan kicks it about $15 trillion further into debt, as I recall.
www.thefiscaltimes.com

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-12 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yep more welfare.

Did you know welfare mothers sell the SS#s of the welfare children to taxpayers so they can claim children and get these credits?

SO we pay welfare twice once to the real mother and a second time to the person who uses the child on the income tax return. The gov does no checking to stop this because they want the votes.

Hillary knows the child tax credit tax scam of claiming children you don't have is massive thats why she wants to increase the amount of money given.

Thats not even counting the fake children people have created by getting SS#s for dogs and pigs.

No one should get any money back if they don't pay taxes and The gov needs to ban the SS#s of welfare children from being used on tax forms to claim these credits.

But no thats not what hillary or Trump wants to do.

#35 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-10-13 09:40 AM | Reply

I just saw a welfare mother she says I can use all 4 of her children on my tax return if I share the refund with her. Great news Hillary.

#36 | Posted by tmaster at 2016-10-13 09:49 AM | Reply

"I recall it slightly different, with him being accused of fiduciary malfeasance for slashing taxes during war."

Unless I am recalling incorrectly, the expansion of the child tax credit took place in Bush's first year probably even before 9/11. No war would have been going on at that time.

If I remember correctly, it was among the tax credits like the solar, wind, geothermal energy tax credits. I believe the credit originally started during the Clinton administration and it was $600. Bush expanded it to $1000.

#37 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2016-10-13 11:11 AM | Reply

Years ago, Hillary proposed a "Baby Bond" I agreed with the concept and would have liked to have seen the tax credit converted to a "Baby Bond" type of benefit whereby the money is put in a mutual fund that would be allowed to grow until age 65. It could act as a supplement to Social Security.

#38 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2016-10-13 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So Hillary do you want more children or more abortions ?

#39 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-10-13 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So Hillary do you want more children or more abortions ?

Posted by Federalist

It's being 'pro-life'

You know, actually caring about people once they're born, not just when they're zygotes

#40 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2016-10-13 02:52 PM | Reply

Did you know welfare mothers sell the SS#s of the welfare children to taxpayers so they can claim children and get these credits?

Welfare mothers created a market.
Welfare mothers are entrepreneurs!

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-13 02:59 PM | Reply

Is this a public stance?

I wonder what her Private stance is?

#42 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-10-13 08:51 PM | Reply

#31 nice deflection.

Rcade may not pay you but you did not say you don't get paid.

#43 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2016-10-13 09:28 PM | Reply

They should tax income the same way they tax corporations. You only get taxed on what's left over after all of your expenses.

#44 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-10-14 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every year about 4 million babies are born in America If we cut the military 15% that would give us $90 Billion a year. We could give EVERY baby born a $22,500 bond in an index fund. If the $22,500 grew at 4%, when they turned 65 they would have $287,000 for retirement. WE would not have to collect FICA taxes so everyone would get a de facto 12.5% raise. There would be administrative costs but they would be very low.

#45 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-10-14 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good posts, Hatter.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-14 02:14 PM | Reply

If we cut the military
#45 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2016-10-14 02:10 PM
It's a nice thought, but with terrorists and Putins living under so many Americans' beds, and hawkish leaders running things, it'll never happen.

Not that I'd expect her to want to, but if Pres. Hillary cut even a fraction of what you're suggesting from the military, the other side would just use it as a political football.

#47 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-10-14 05:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort