B, thank you for posting the quote correctly so I could actually google it (take note, Timm; that's one of the things that makes him so fun to debate with- he does his homework.
).
Here's the context, from the AP report:
<<Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." >>
I'm sure you'll all be shocked, shocked to hear that I don't really have any issue with rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If it cuts the deficit and helps pay back the enormous cost for Bush's little experiment in nation-building, fine. What, so the super-wealthy (who were the ones who benefited most from the tax cuts) get five luxury houses instead of six? Cry me a river. Props to Clinton for actually telling it straight to the rich people it would affect. Hey, if they can afford $10,000 to hear her speak, they can afford to see the tax cuts rolled back.
Next, Timm?
Again, Bababooyee, thank you for taking the time to post the quote correctly. Much appreciated.
