Up for Debate: Dems pick Wynn for clerk

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 at 12:32am

What you think about the state Democratic Party's vote to nominate U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper aide Brenda Wynn to run for Davidson County clerk in the fall? Also, how much do you think that nomination might affect the Metro Council appointment of an interim clerk next month? Will Republicans be able to muster up their own candidate? 

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

86 Comments on this post:

By: budlight on 7/10/12 at 5:16

They are democrats. What didwe expect? Hopefully the Council can see through Dean's appointment. I know the people sure do.

By: yogiman on 7/10/12 at 5:42

Both parties can offer a nominee, but the winner will obviously be chosen by the party in power to make the pick.

So is the Metro Council dominated by the Republican or Democrat parties?

By: Ummm... on 7/10/12 at 6:05

brainedlight speaks for the people! (Yeah, right...)

By: govskeptic on 7/10/12 at 6:14

Nice lady, I've spoken to her on two separate occasions and she can
speak the language of politics very well. It will be interesting to see if
this council goes along with selecting her as their candidate for this
temporary appointment or selects one of their own, AGAIN! .
I suspect there will wind up being several names on the Nov. ballot!
Only 3 appeared before the Democratic Executive Committee for them
to consider!

By: Rasputin72 on 7/10/12 at 6:35

I had hoped they would pick either Glenn or Ben.

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 6:55

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/cybersecurity-law-privacy-concerns-nsa-americans-emails_n_1660669.html

"The head of the U.S. spy agency that eavesdrops on electronic communications overseas sought on Monday to reassure Americans that the National Security Agency would not read their personal email if a new cybersecurity law was enacted to allow private companies to share information with the government."

Yeah right.
And I have some prime beachfront property in Montana for sale---cheap.

By: slacker on 7/10/12 at 7:09

Considering the short time factor involved until the nov. elections.. why not leave the Deputy clerk in charge, until the new clerk is elected?

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 7:23

Power of incumbency, Slack.

By: budlight on 7/10/12 at 7:24

Slacker, my sentiments exactly. But that is too logical. And of course, we have to spend more money to be sure that the "shoe-in" for Dean has time to cement the deal.

Didn't you see her comments about getting the word out to everyone? Money, money, money, money.

Ummmm? Or is that Dummmm? You are just light headed all the time.

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 7:45

I see Obama is after the evil rich again. He really does want to make the country's revenues completely dependent on a small sliver of people who can choose how much they earn, doesn't he.

Bush's tax rates are even more progressive than the Clinton rates; and Obama wants to further increase in the progressiveness? A minority of voters already pay the vast majority of income taxes so I guess expanding on that is the political wet dream de jure.

I personally think everyone should have a substantial stake in the cost of government rather than just a minority of voters. Politicians and bureaucrats and entitlement beneficiaries would necessarily disagree, I guess.

I'm a logical guy so I just have to ask... what's wrong with taxing everyone a flat % of income... with just a standard deduction to help cover necessities?

By: slacker on 7/10/12 at 7:45

Yeah.. I'm just stating the obvious, I understand the politics involved.
Other than performing marriages, and hiring ghost employees, the Deputy clerk was probably running the office anyway.

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 7:47

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q171n/

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 7:49

I agree with that, slack. They just needed to lock in a little spoils before the real political process took over.

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 8:04

"what's wrong with taxing everyone a flat % of income... "

Because the banks want loopholes so they can avoid paying their fair share, the oil companies want to get welfare checks instead of paying their fair share, plutocrats want special exemptions so they can get an IRA worth 101 million etc etc

I'd prefer a national sales tax which includes services and ALL sales.
If you buy legal services from an attorney, pay sales tax. If you buy stock, you pay sales tax, when it's sold again: sales tax, and again and again and again.

I'd also like to see a flat tax applied to Social Security and Medicare. As it is now, the low income citizens pay a far higher percentage.

By: Rasputin72 on 7/10/12 at 8:21

KOSH III......I know you are sincere and truly want to do what is right. You also are the most unsophisticated poster on this board. In order to solve a problem you must first understand the problem and the equation, You jump to an answer to a problem that you have not completely understood.

That I guess is okay since you are not a minority when it comes to answers and opinions about things that are not fully understood.

What makes you think that low income citizens pay a higher percentage than "high income" for social security and medicare?

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 8:37

"I'd also like to see a flat tax applied to Social Security and Medicare. As it is now, the low income citizens pay a far higher percentage. "

No they don't

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 8:37

I'm OK with the Sales Tax though. You should check out the Fair Tax.

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 8:40

Oh... you're talking about the cap. The thing about SSI is that it's progressive on the back side because it takes very little contribution to achieve the maximum benefit.

I'd opt. out in a heart-beat. It's a terrible investment. 15% of your income over 50+ years for a stupid $1000 a month life annuity whose value evaporates upon death? If someone in the private sector tried to sell that they'd be thrown under the jail.

By: Ummm... on 7/10/12 at 8:43

brainedlight says: "Ummmm? Or is that Dummmm? You are just light headed all the time."

I may be light-headed, but at least I have the good sense not to claim that I speak for the people- unlike you.

By: Ummm... on 7/10/12 at 8:50

Little Bennie wants a flat tax- I'm sure that would include ending ALL deductions (like mortgage interest, for example- big boon to the housing industry) and classifying income as income- no matter how it is gained. Since he wants you to believe that Obama has it in for rich people, here's some truth about income taxes under Eisenhower- a republican president: "During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, the top rate averaged roughly 90 percent, typically hitting individuals making $200,000 a year or couples making $400,000 a year. In 2010 dollars, that's equivalent to $1.6 million for an individual and $3.2 million for a couple. Someone making the 1954 equivalent of $373,650 in today's money would have paid a tax rate of 72 percent back then."

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 8:59

I said: "As it is now, the low income citizens pay a far higher percentage. "
Ben said
No they don't"

Sorry but the SSA says different. A person making less than $110,100 pays a set percentage, currently 4.2%.
A person making over that amount pays a set amount of $4,624.00 regardless.
So someone making one million will pay .66%.

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 9:02

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html#a0=0

Rasputin: I'm sophisticated enough to recognize arrogant snobs who think their money makes them a superior being who has the right to mis-treat other people.
If you want to live that way, move to China and become a Party leader.

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 9:10

That's why I said, "Oh... you're talking about the cap"... please keep up.

By: brrrrk on 7/10/12 at 9:20

BenDover said

"I see Obama is after the evil rich again. He really does want to make the country's revenues completely dependent on a small sliver of people who can choose how much they earn, doesn't he."

And what Ben conveniently leaves out is the fact that the "sliver" he refers to not only have gotten the majority of the income increases over the past 20 odd years, but that they also control the majority of the wealth. OF COURSE they pay more in taxes, they HAVE more and are getting more. But in terms of the percentage of they're overall income that they pay in taxes, well that's far below what the average person pays in percentage.

By: brrrrk on 7/10/12 at 9:22

Kosh III said

"Sorry but the SSA says different. A person making less than $110,100 pays a set percentage, currently 4.2%.
A person making over that amount pays a set amount of $4,624.00 regardless.
So someone making one million will pay .66%."

Dang Kosh, you beat me to it...... :-)

By: Captain Nemo on 7/10/12 at 9:36

By: budlight on 7/9/12 at 8:23
The $635 million Music City Center — even in its unfinished state — already has emerged as one of Nashville’s most distinctive (and opinion generating) buildings. It is Nashville’s “widescraper,” and those who like their architecture big and bold must be thrilled.

"Widescraper"? Yeah it is wide. And Dean is big! A big liberal with big liberal spending ideas. Tax increases will continue to flow in. We are due for an assessment soon. That, to follow our under the legal limit to vote on tax increase. Somebody buy my house - please!

Now bud talks about her backside “Widescarper”

Next time I see a truck with Wide Load on the back side I will think of sidames. LOL

By: Captain Nemo on 7/10/12 at 9:42

Old Widescarper aka budwipe is hoping that the value of homes will goes up, so she can sale her.

If I was budwipe (I glad I’m not) I would sale my house soon, before the city condemns that rat-infested bridge of hers.

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 9:54

Ben

Do you support a uniform percentage for SSA?
Doing so would go a long way toward it's continued solvency.

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 9:58

That's incorrect Brrrk. The higher earners pay far more in income taxes, both in percentage and in hard dollars than do the lower incomes.

2/3rds of the people in this country have no earned income and of the 1/3rd that does half of them pay no income taxes and in most cases reap a net benefit in the form of EIC and other credits. The other half of earners pay substantially more in income taxes as their incomes rise in the progressive rate structure. The top 5% pay about 58% of the income taxes and the top 25% pay about 90% of the income taxes.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

So almost 60% of the income taxes are paid pay 5% of the taxpayer who represent < 2% of the total population. So Obama wants to base an even greater total of the US tax revenues on an even smaller number of people who can choose whether or not they go to work in the morning. The highly progressive income tax is why we already have such a huge discrepancy in incomes in this country.

Now if you want to talk about capital gains taxes then you have to include the fact that dropping the rates substantially increased the revenues because capital gains are the definition of a discretionary tax. Obama's already on record for acknowledging this fact yet he is willing to take in less revenues out of 'fairness'.

In his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 9:59

If there was a national sales tax, Romney would pay 2.76 million in sales tax on his latest 12 million home. That's based on 23% rate which is what IIRC Huckabee proposed in his 2008 campaign.

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 10:03

"Obama's already on record for acknowledging this fact yet he is willing to take in less revenues out of 'fairness'. "

I thought you just said you favor a "Fair Tax?"

---------------

"2/3rds of the people in this country have no earned income"

2/3rds don't work? I doubt that even in these times when jobs are being shipped to RED China by our supposed "capitalists."
Unless you are counting minors and retirees and even then.....

By: Captain Nemo on 7/10/12 at 10:04

By: Rasputin72 on 7/7/12 at 3:23
LONER.......I am just healthy and wealthy, why don't you tell Captain Nemo about Heaven?

Rasputin why don’t you tell me about Heaven, or are you too good for such a mundane task?

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 10:07

Kosh, I just explained above that the SSI taxes are progressive on the return side with a cap on payments being way past the maximum possible benefits.

A high earner is forced to pay in 5+ times as much for the same miniscule and meager return that even the lowest earners should be bitching about.

On top of that your glorious government has already spent every dime put into that fund along the way and we're having to make up the difference with more debt and taxes from the general fund.

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 10:09

Does the White House spin ever go through a cognition filter or is it simply in the ear and out the mouth with you guys?

By: Captain Nemo on 7/10/12 at 10:12

Maybe the WH does not have FOXS NEWS to spin for them, Ben. ;-)

By: BenDover on 7/10/12 at 10:18

Oh... they spin it quite well on their own Nemo. And they have everyone but Fox signed up for megaphone duty. (including Kosh, Ummm and Brrrk)

By: Captain Nemo on 7/10/12 at 10:22

Your post is found on page 32 paragraph 7 line1 in the hand book of Fox crap Ben. lol

By: brrrrk on 7/10/12 at 10:27

BenDover said

"That's incorrect Brrrk. The higher earners pay far more in income taxes, both in percentage and in hard dollars than do the lower incomes."

Only on the Federal level............and you know that.

By: Rasputin72 on 7/10/12 at 10:29

KOSH III,,,,,,,Yes, there is a cap on social secutity deductions. There is also a cap on the amount of money one can draw from social security upon elgibility.

I might not like it because I can earn more money on my own for retirement than allow social security to provide my pension. If however they want to raise the social security amount that I can draw I will be glad to abide by an elevated scale.

What you want me to do is to pay social security on my elevated earning but get no further increase in benefits.

If Obama was not running and Attila the Hun was running on the basis that everyone with an IQ over 128 and a net worth of over 5 million dollars should be executed I am sure you would be a strong supporter. It started as an underclass creed and has stepped up to the 35,000 to 45,000 dollar a year income brackets.

Heck, I am sure that if I were in the same situation as yourself I would probably vote the same way while I worked my butt off to make sure I did not stay that way.

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 10:30

Ben

What does SSI have to do with it?

--------------
Here's a handy-dandy quote for everyone, more true today than when first spoken.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., April 4, 1967

By: Kosh III on 7/10/12 at 10:34

Raputin

Since my IQ is well above 128 I'd not be in favor of that, nor of anything that kills---esp. wars.

So you'd pay in more? I pay for roads I'll never use, schools I'll never attend, fire protection I hope I never use. I certainly pay for wars and an Empire I do not support.
We are all in this together: E Pluribus Unum.

By: yogiman on 7/10/12 at 10:43

Now that y'all have figured out the income for the federal government (taxes, that is) has any of you looked into the Obamacare program Barry has thrown at us?

I've just read some notes a judge (David Kithil of Marble Falls TX has gone through from it and what he's found ain't good.

I'm sure most of you aren't in the bucket yet, but at age 76, when you need it most, you will not be eligible for cancer treatment. I guess they figure you aren't worth the cost at that age. See page 272.

Also, on page 50/ section 152 the bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. citizens, even if they're here illegally.

Page 58 & 59: The government will have access to your bank account and will have the authority to make electronic transfers from your account.

There's more. Check 'um out HB 3200. Check page 65/section 164, page 203/line 14-15, page 241and 253, page 272/section 1145, page 317 and 321, page 425/line 4-12, page 429/line 13-25.

Now note: This bill does not apply to the members of Congress. They're already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded retirement plan that covers their "retirement" needs (Congress should not have a "retirement" program. Serving on Congress is not a career or job).

It is believed if they were on the same program of the "common citizens" they would fix this plan pretty damn quick. After all, they've go to "take care" of themselves. To hell with the idiots that voted them in office.

By: JohnGalt on 7/10/12 at 10:52

BD wrote regarding lib/dems, "Does the White House spin ever go through a cognition filter or is it simply in the ear and out the mouth with you guys?"

That's one of the best I've ever heard/read. Is it copyrighted?

By: Ummm... on 7/10/12 at 10:59

"White House spin," that's pretty funny, Little Bennie. You take your spin from some fascist Australian and his Faux News, while brrrrk, Kosh and I take ours from the president of the United States. Sounds OK to me...

By: JohnGalt on 7/10/12 at 11:10

One thing I can contratulate your lib/dems on, your consummate ability to use your head to inspect the interior of your anal canal.

By: Ummm... on 7/10/12 at 11:14

Little Bennie says: "The highly progressive income tax is why we already have such a huge discrepancy in incomes in this country."

Sure it is, Little Bennie. Of course, you haven't tried to explain why it is that in the 1950's (an era the Teapublicans would appear to wistfully long for) when the USA had a strong, large "middle class," the "progressive" income tax rates went up to 90% for the very highest earners. Cat got your tongue on that one, Little Bennie?

By: Ummm... on 7/10/12 at 11:16

JohnGalt says: "One thing I can contratulate your lib/dems on, your consummate ability to use your head to inspect the interior of your anal canal."

What a brilliant comment- illustrates quite clearly what an empty-headed "true believer" sounds like- no substance whatsoever, only an insulting remark that only he thinks is clever.

By: gdiafante on 7/10/12 at 11:34

So you'd pay in more? I pay for roads I'll never use, schools I'll never attend, fire protection I hope I never use. I certainly pay for wars and an Empire I do not support.
We are all in this together: E Pluribus Unum.

Bravo! That's the problem with this country. Everyone is only in it for themselves. And that, my friends, is BS.

By: yogiman on 7/10/12 at 11:38

Sorry, Ummm, but you , brrrrk and Kosh II, along with the other citizens of this nation, don't have an official U.S. President if office today. You'll just have to accept the "in house" usurper going by the name Barack Obama.

Have you figured out who he is yet?

By: brrrrk on 7/10/12 at 11:42

gdiafante said

"Bravo! That's the problem with this country. Everyone is only in it for themselves. And that, my friends, is BS."

The irony is that, regardless of the contribution that any one person can make, it still takes a society, and the cooperation that a society provides, for that individual to realize their dream. There is only one group of people in this country that even comes close to realizing true independence, and that's the Amish. So...... anyone here care to trade in their Hummer for a horse and carriage?