Here is your agenda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule. As in the first 100 hours the House meets after Democrats _ in her fondest wish _ win control in the Nov. 7 midterm elections and Pelosi takes the gavel as the first Madam Speaker in history. Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation." Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients. Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday. All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority. To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized. "We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work." "We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added. Pelosi, 66, has been a leader of the House Democrats since 2002. But her political apprenticeship dates to childhood, when her father was mayor of Baltimore. "

Ok, now we can discuss this agenda, and the resulting actions in the House here.

Do you think they'll leave corporate tax rates the same? Do you think they'll do away with the 15% long-term capital gains tax rate?

And let me go ahead and make this public here, do not be fooled in 2 years by Nancy Pelosi's "balanced budget" or "surplus budget" because that is going to happen in 2 years even if she does nothing. She probably can increase spending and still show a balanced budget in 2 years. Do not fall victim to this. The future surplus is because of economic growth, not because we have a Democratic majority. I know this is no use, most democrats (and some republicans) will fall for it anyway, but you have been forewarned.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 8:21:29 AM

Lets see here..

I think breaking the lobbyist link is really going to be bipartisan fluff. But I could be very wrong here with the amount of new democratic blood in the Congress now.

I look forward to seeing the House enact the 9/11 Commissions remmondations, and how the Senate if the GOP controls is still reacts. It will be either a win for democrats, ie showing the GOP doesnt care about real national security or a great day for us all as something meaningful gets done.

The minimum wage will get passed, if only to be rejected by the President. Which would make him further unpopular and his party.

Dear gods please cut the student loan interest rate OR get them to take off that damn law saying your locked in to high rates for life with no chance of lowering it.

Perscription drugs, if presented with common sense to the Congress, may actually be passed.

And stem cell research may be just like the minimum wage.

Overall I hope she does get to all of this and more. If only to get the country focused on issues that truly matter to our well being.

And not gay marriage, abortion, or Britney Spears' divorce. seriously.

11/8/2006 8:46:27 AM

Quote :

"The minimum wage will get passed, if only to be rejected by the President. Which would make him further unpopular and his party. Dear gods please cut the student loan interest rate OR get them to take off that damn law saying your locked in to high rates for life with no chance of lowering it. "

I don't think the will veto a minimum wage bill. Also, I don't think student loan rates need to be cut in half. They're quite low already (compared to a free market rate). I do agree that you should be able to consolidate it and not be locked in, because that's only fair.

I'm not extremely worried about the change in power balance until 2008. If there are 2 branches of government completely controlled by Dems, you'll see the same thing that happened in 2000-2008. Catering to the base, leaving the middle out.

And I guess sustainable Social Security reform is out of the question. No way they put us in private accounts, which is the only way to actually fix social security (or to some other way tie our money to our benefits, rather than the benefits of those retiring right now)

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:53 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 8:51:58 AM

I agree as much as I would like a Democratic controlled Senate, it could end up just catering to the base. However I think since the White House is Republican, that wont happen. If anything with the more moderate Democrats, ones from NC and OH in the House, and Montana and Pennsylvania in the Senate, you could see meaningful moderate legislation on issues such as min. wage and allowing college students to refinance their loans passed.

heck social security reforms may even be enacted by 2008, depending on how effective 2007 is. Its a big issue, one thats not just black and white as both extreme sides of the parties want us to believe. But with Iraq still on the docket, it may not be looked at by the politically taxed public till then.

11/8/2006 9:14:01 AM

breaking the lobbyist link is not going to happen in any real meaningful way

k st has been hiring dems for months now in anticipation of this

lobbyists are needed no matter if the average yokel doesn't understand why and thinks they're just

SPECIAL INTERESTS!!!! GASP

11/8/2006 9:17:52 AM

Quote :

"Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation.""

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HA!

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:11 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 9:42:38 AM

Quote :

"roguewolf: Dear gods please cut the student loan interest rate OR get them to take off that damn law saying your locked in to high rates for life with no chance of lowering it."

You're not locked into high rates at all, you can always refinance with a private lender later.

Cutting interest rates would be disastrous, b/c it's inevitably going to mean the actual borrowing limits will be reduced too. Increasing the Stafford loan limits, even with the higher fixed rates that came with them (which were themselves enacted by the request of students back when variable rate loans had higher rates overall), was probably the best thing about the entire budget reconciliation act from 2 years ago...

11/8/2006 10:22:21 AM

Quote :

"She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized."

Oh well, all this tax money was good while it lasted. The Effective Tax Rate on the richest 10% hit a new high in 2005. Start raising Marginal Tax Rates again and watch the Effective Tax Rate fall as the rich, once again, begin investing heavily in tax-avoidance activities. Thankfully, government is divided so it should work out. Did the Republicans manage to make the "Bush Tax Cuts" permanent?

11/8/2006 10:56:02 AM

Actually i cant TGD. I tried, and its no longer legal. Unless I'm being lied to by everyone, by lender and my bank just to start, than the laws on student lending and refinancing needs to be fixed.

Increasing Stafford loans AND reducing interest rates to borrow more may be what needs to be done. I know you all have seen the rate of tutition and fees increase around here lately. While its not smart sense b/c borrowing is bad (i agree) it may be a option that should be left on the table for people who need it.

I'm not at all adovacting higher levels of borrowing in an economy that cannot get it under control period. But allowing students evey opportunity to save my constently retooling their terms is to say the least, fair.



[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:59 AM. Reason : oh and thanks Shaggy for fixing that. I was like wtf happened?]

11/8/2006 10:58:36 AM

Quote :

"Increasing Stafford loans AND reducing interest rates to borrow more may be what needs to be done."

Those interst rates are still low. Think about some of your friends on the loans that also have credit card debt at +15%. A private loan would be much higher, and really in today's economy, those interest rates are low.

11/8/2006 11:10:45 AM

I'm not saying what I have isnt low. But the whole "its lower than a lot of things" agrument...which parallels the whole "NC tutition is lower than other schools" argument...isn't a good excuse either. No offense!

But if a company said to me hey reconsilidate/retool your loan with us for a 1% less in 2 years, and I cant'? How's that fair?



Thats all I'm saying. I'm damn glad my loan isn't what my credit card is. DAMN skippy.

11/8/2006 3:04:52 PM

Well I agree with you on that, but your assertion that "that's all I'm saying" is incorrect. You also said they needed to be lowered and I'm telling you they're low enough already. When they're lower than the market rate, we're subsidizing it for you, remember that.

11/8/2006 3:09:28 PM

You got me, I also would like to see the interest rate lowered for student loans. I forgot I mentioned that honestly. By main concern is loan fairness, and lowering the rate isn't at all a priority, more of a preference. Yep it would be subsidizing students' education, but I'm all for that. I'm a education whore really.

A slight burden on the people in order to better their children's and grandchildren's generations in higher (all really) education is why i'm a liberal. progressive. whatever the monkier is today.

We square? because I really need to write this essay...

11/8/2006 3:34:22 PM

lol, go write you crazy bastard.

Yes, we're square

11/8/2006 3:59:43 PM

When they say in the $250k-300k range they don't mean people they mean small business... screw the working man! Oh and lets raise the minimum wage for the 6 people in the county who actually make minimum. But I guess we'll have to give everyone a raise and then I guess since we're all making more money we probably should raise the cost of all the stuff we like to buy TO HELL WITH YOUR $1 MENU!!!!! muHAHAHAH

11/8/2006 5:19:53 PM

^You seem to be angry in the right direction...but in a very unusual way. Much like a monkey who's found out you can throw poo for the first time.

11/8/2006 6:14:18 PM

Isn't 4.7% low enough? That is three percentage points lower than a mortgage.

11/8/2006 7:16:56 PM

If you have a decent family business or farm, you better hope they figure out how to make people immortal with the stem cells, because the death tax is going to wipe out what your family has worked hard for and paid taxes on.

11/8/2006 7:38:17 PM

^uh, huh?

you know the estate tax has been around, right?

11/8/2006 7:52:19 PM

of course it has, but there is no chance of the repeal being continued now.

11/8/2006 7:53:44 PM

well, farms and family businesses seem to have survived up until now, no?

11/8/2006 7:54:44 PM

Quote :

"well, farms and family businesses seem to have survived up until now, no?"

lots of nice housing developments up in your direction?

11/8/2006 7:59:28 PM

^^that's beside the point, but I don't feel like arguing. that's a waste of time on here.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:02 PM. Reason : ...]

11/8/2006 8:00:12 PM

yeah, yeah it is [a waste of time]

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2006 8:01:39 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: And let me go ahead and make this public here, do not be fooled in 2 years by Nancy Pelosi's "balanced budget" or "surplus budget" because that is going to happen in 2 years even if she does nothing. She probably can increase spending and still show a balanced budget in 2 years. Do not fall victim to this. The future surplus is because of economic growth, not because we have a Democratic majority. I know this is no use, most democrats (and some republicans) will fall for it anyway, but you have been forewarned."

So there's nothing that Democrats can do to contribute to a balanced budget?

And how did you come to this conclusion? Could you show something that indicates that there's going to be economic growth in the next two years and that's going to ensure a balanced budget?

Because I'm not that smart, and I'm out the loop with economics stuff...and I'd hate to discover you're just repeating something you heard someone else say.

Quote :

"bcsawyer: If you have a decent family business or farm, you better hope they figure out how to make people immortal with the stem cells, because the death tax is going to wipe out what your family has worked hard for and paid taxes on."

Where are these hugely successful family farms? Yes, a few do exist, but the idea that there are small farmers everywhere, suffering under the death tax is a myth.

Quote :

"bcsawyer: lots of nice housing developments up in your direction?"

It couldn't be that small-time farming simply isn't a decent way to make a living anymore...OH NO, IT HAS TO BE THE EVIL DEATH TAX!

On a side note, I'm sympathetic to the idea of people losing their way of life, but eventually, you just gotta pick up and move on with the rest of us.

11/8/2006 8:21:06 PM

My point is not necessarily directed at farming or any other enterprise. I am simply saying that it is wrong for the government to take a huge portion of someone's wealth and property that has had property taxes paid on it and was bought with money that income/capital gains taxes were paid on upon their death. It should be that person's right to leave it to whoever they want, not give to the government what they have already given the government a share of in the first place. Large farms and successful businesses with valuable assets just tend to fall above the threshold and often the heirs have to liquidate assets just to cover the inheritance taxes.

11/8/2006 8:34:37 PM

Quote :

"My point is not necessarily directed at farming or any other enterprise. I am simply saying that it is wrong for the government to take a huge portion of someone's wealth and property that has had property taxes paid on it and was bought with money that income/capital gains taxes were paid on upon their death."

If that was your point, you should have framed it that way. Instead you made it seem like you were concerned about the middle-class families supposedly losing their "decent" businesses to some horrible tax. Let's be honest...the majority of us aren't affected by the death tax. Your concern lies with the rich, but you frame it like the little guy is getting the shaft, but he's not...

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2006 8:44:02 PM

there are a lot of middle class people who have valuable property, but they don't have tons of cash laying around to pay the government half the value of it. these are the people that "get the shaft." people who support the tax will have you believe that it only affects the super rich, but that is not the case.

11/8/2006 8:58:48 PM

^People who are passing on more than $2,000,000 in anything are hardly middle class.


[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 9:09 PM. Reason : DOUBLE CHECKED]

11/8/2006 9:02:02 PM

Quote :

"And how did you come to this conclusion? Could you show something that indicates that there's going to be economic growth in the next two years and that's going to ensure a balanced budget?"

Well, perhaps the 3 years of fantastic economic growth. The staggering increase in tax receipts year over year?
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/darda200506270902.asp

Quote :

" Fiscal year to date, total government receipts are up 15.5 percent, the fastest rate of increase on a comparable FYTD basis since 1981. The difference between the growth rate of tax revenues and the growth rate of government spending has widened to 8.4-percentage points, the largest since late 2000 when the budget was in surplus. "

That site may be biased, but that line is factually correct, and is official government number.

http://bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Go look for GDP growth in the past 3 years.

Quote :

"So there's nothing that Democrats can do to contribute to a balanced budget? "

Sure there is plenty they can do to make it even better and/or not fuck it up. But taking all credit for it (and they will) is wrong.

Quote :

"Let's be honest...the majority of us aren't affected by the death tax. Your concern lies with the rich, but you frame it like the little guy is getting the shaft, but he's not..."

Well, I speak from experience here because I am a financial advisor who works with wealthy people. I also work with estate planning attorneys very often. RICH people don't pay estate tax. The super wealthy avoid it through the use of irrevocable trusts and gifting strategies. Estate tax is optional. Unfortunately, those that pay estate tax aren't the super rich. They're the people who have valuable homes from living in them for many years and have moderate sized estates.
This year the number is 2 million. That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't consideering life insurance is included as well as home equity. In 2011 the number goes back down to 1 million.
The majority of all estate tax by percentage is paid by people who were right around the 2 million mark and didn't even realize it and by those that simply died before doing any estate planning. You can bet your ass that no one last named Bush or Kennedy will pay estate tax.

The burden of the estate tax is on the upper-middle class, not the wealthy.

And I didn't just repeat what I heard, that's the fucking truth.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 9:34 PM. Reason : clarification]

11/8/2006 9:29:24 PM

I'm a big fan of the "death tax," and I don't care who knows it. I generally don't like anybody getting a substantial amount of money that they themselves didn't work for, and I have that position for a range of reasons...but, specifically to this case, I think it's a source of funds for the government that can be tapped with minimal impact on most working people.

11/8/2006 9:35:46 PM

Grumpy, that's why most working people like it. They don't get hurt, someone else does. Hooray!

Besides not liking the government to retax income and wealth its already taxed several times,

a) Hardly any rich people pay estate tax, they simply avoid it (which is easy to do)
b) Why should you get it if someone's parents die before they're adults?

And not liking the government coming back for seconds or thirds is the real reason estate tax is wrong. I'm all for removing the step-up in basis (which happens in 2010, btw, but comes back in '11) because the government didn't get its fair shot at the tax, but beyond that, forget it.

11/8/2006 9:39:48 PM

bgmims, your entire post towards me is not needed. I'm aware that super rich people find "loopholes" for just about everything.

We may disagree about the adjectives, wealthy/rich/upper-middle class/super wealthy, but that's inconsequential, given that my posts were directed at bcsawyer who was trying to make it out like there was some large amount of middle class individuals being shafted by the estate tax--it affects less than two percent of the population...surely you don't agree with bcsawyer that a significant portion of the middle class is being crippled by the estate tax? Because that's the aspect of his post that I was taking the most fault with. I do not like it when people misrepresent this issue, as bcsawyer did.

[Edited on November 8, 2006 at 10:38 PM. Reason : sss]

11/8/2006 10:27:40 PM

Quote :

"b) Why should you get it if someone's parents die before they're adults?"

What does that matter? They're still inheriting the lion's share of whatever was left to them. Don't try to sing me a song about the kids of rich parents getting screwed. They're still better off than most for it.

Quote :

"a) Hardly any rich people pay estate tax, they simply avoid it (which is easy to do)"

Fine, find a way to fix that. People evading a tax is not a valid argument against the tax.

Quote :

"Grumpy, that's why most working people like it. They don't get hurt, someone else does. Hooray!"

This just comes off as stupid. Pretty much everything the government does hurts somebody.

11/9/2006 7:40:49 PM

IM SO MAD THAT THEY WANT TO SHIFT THE TAX CUTS TO HELP OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS

11/9/2006 7:46:37 PM

Quote :

"Fine, find a way to fix that. People evading a tax is not a valid argument against the tax."

Ahahaha, you fucking retard. They don't evade the tax, they avoid it using Trust laws that have been essentially the same for 1000 years.

Irrevocable trusts avoid estate tax. They've been using it for a millenium and the trust laws WILL NOT change. You bet your sweet ass of that.

11/9/2006 10:03:25 PM

Quote :

"Fine, find a way to fix that. People evading a tax is not a valid argument against the tax."

Why not? Making alcohol illegal ingendered rampant illegality and nearly caused a breakdown of the social fabric, was that not a valid argument in favor of ending prohibition? Is the only valid argument in favor of legalizing drugs "I want some"?

That is one of the reasons I dislike the income tax, it fails to tax liars and criminals.

I don't feel the estate tax needs to be eliminated, but it is valid to complain that it doesn't tax criminals, liars, or the clever (thank God for overseas strict banking secrecy laws).

[Edited on November 9, 2006 at 10:56 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/9/2006 10:56:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't feel the estate tax needs to be eliminated, but it is valid to complain that it doesn't tax criminals, liars, or the clever (thank God for overseas strict banking secrecy laws)."

Avoiding estate tax using trusts is neither illegal, unethical (no lying involved) nor does it involve bank secrecy laws or going offshore. It is US trust law, that is based on English trust law that has been essentually the same since the Feudal system began taxing Lords.

11/9/2006 11:07:18 PM

Quote :

"essentually"

I'm the fucking retard?

"Evade" and "avoid" are almost completely interchangeable in common parlance.

Quote :

"They've been using it for a millenium and the trust laws WILL NOT change."

O RLY?

I can think of plenty of laws that stuck around and then were made to go away. Just because you seem to have a boner for them doesn't mean they're on some special pedastal in world legal history. And I'm not even talking abolition of them, just some tweaking here and there.

Quote :

"Is the only valid argument in favor of legalizing drugs "I want some"?"

No, the only valid arguments in favor of legalizing drugs would have to have to do with whether or not they were dangerous OR whether or not the government had any right to ban them to begin with.

And prohibition is a poor example. The reason it went to shit was that the American people were, when they sobered up and thought about it, for the most part rabidly against it. The law went against the will of the people and so it collapsed. Only a relatively small part of the population is affected by the estate tax, and of that only a relatively small part goes to all the trouble to avoid paying it. This isn't some massive popular resistance to an unjust law, it's a handful of the very wealthy trying to hold onto their money.

11/10/2006 12:05:27 AM

Quote :

"the government coming back for seconds or thirds is the real reason estate tax is wrong."

exactly

Quote :

"People who are passing on more than $2,000,000 in anything are hardly middle class."

i wouldn't say that.

let's say that I never earn more than a middle class (and not even upper-middle class) salary, but save and invest to accumulate the couple of million or so I'd need to comfortably retire...but then die relatively young. bam, i've left a couple million.

furthermore, many people (i think maybe even a majority, but i can't quote the numbers offhand) of people who accumulate a certain amount of a nest egg for retirement do not, in fact, deplete the principle as they planned, and actually die with more than they retired with, due to the miracle of compound interest. again, in this scenario, you have a person who never earned more than a middle class salary and never lived above a middle class lifestyle who's passing on a couple of million bucks.

11/10/2006 12:41:23 AM

^

1. The government already comes back for seconds and thirds. Don't act like the estate tax is the only thing.
2. The whole concept of "middle class" is a bit difficult. But people that we generally think of as "middle class" are not affected by the estate tax. I realize there are people who break the mold, but bcsawyer would have us believe this family:



...would be affected by the estate tax.

And that just isn't so.

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 12:50 AM. Reason : two percent yo.]

11/10/2006 12:48:05 AM

Quote :

"1. The government already comes back for seconds and thirds. Don't act like the estate tax is the only thing."

oh yeah, no argument from me on that. it's all bullshit, not just the estate tax. income tax, in its current means of implementation, is a giant, retarded clusterfuck, but it wouldn't be so bad if it stopped there. after that, you have sales tax, capital gains tax, social security, gift tax, luxury tax, gas guzzler tax, "sin" taxes, estate tax, etc. how many damn times do you have to pillage the same pot of money?


^i think you'd be surprised. $2 million ain't really shit. plenty of people have $2 million in net worth, and most of them don't really have a flashy lifestyle. I have no idea what my grandparents, for example, are worth, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's that much. my granddad was in the air force, then was a mechanic, then owned a motorcycle dealership. he drives a 40 year old Vhevy truck that needs a paint job and a 15 year old Dodge van, and my grandmother drives an '88 Chevy Caprice. They live in the same house they built when they got married back in the '50s. they've saved a ton of money over the years, and inherited a fair amount from their parents who did the same (and never lived a flashy lifestyle. my great-granddad was worth millions and lived in a singlewide trailer with no air conditioning. granted, he was an eccentric cat, but still.)

I think you--and most people--have a distorted view of the common millionaire. they're all around you, and you don't even know it.

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 1:09 AM. Reason : i mean, 2 million is rare air if you're 25, but not if you're 65.]

11/10/2006 1:08:21 AM

Quote :

"I think you--and most people--have a distorted view of the common millionaire. they're all around you, and you don't even know it."

Excellent point.

And most of these millionaires worked their butts off their whole lives only to be accused of not paying their "Fair Share" of taxes. And God forbid we let these people decide where their hard-earned money goes after they die. If they want to give it to their kids or charity or a trust fund for their cat, what business is it of anyone else's?

11/10/2006 1:41:54 AM

^^No, I don't have a distorted view of the average millionaire. My grandparents are accidental millionaires...my grandfather didn't go to college and he got some education in electrical engineering when he was in the Navy, and used that training to get a job at a young AT&T...you know the rest.

My parents, both in their late 50's, are also "loaded." My father drives an F-150; my mother, a Civic. They just bought a trailor at the beach.

But the estate tax affects two percent of the general population...so when anyone tries to make it out like it's this huge force that cripples the middle class, I say BULLSHIT.

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 1:53 AM. Reason : Same thing I've said a dozen times already...]

11/10/2006 1:51:35 AM

It entertains me, on some level, that the same people who will argue that poor kids shouldn't get money for no work are fanatical about giving rich kids money for no work.

I know, I know -- one's government mandated and one's voluntary. But I tend to think it's reasonable enough that your rights taper off pretty quick once your dead, and that nobody is entitled to a free fortune.

Whose rights are violated when you take a dead man's money?

11/10/2006 2:07:29 AM

2 things

1) i very much appreciate what ^ said

2)

Quote :

"All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority."

this is the only thing that bothers me, just as is the case with any major corporation, being in debt isn't bad, people forget that the us government has never defaulted on a payment

11/10/2006 3:14:36 AM

^^ The dead man--or woman--that has already paid taxes on assets and would like to leave the rest to his or her family. But I suppose some of you would say to hell with the wishes of the dead; let's pour the hard-earned and previously taxed money down that rat hole known as Uncle Sugar's pocket. Well, fuck that!

[Edited on November 10, 2006 at 3:51 AM. Reason : ^]

11/10/2006 3:50:30 AM

^It's already been pointed out that money is taxed multiple times otherwise...so no need to put "already" in italics, like you're making some huge point.

11/10/2006 4:31:09 AM

Quote :

" To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized. "We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work.""

Fucking bitch!

Having said that ...

The interesting thing here is not the first 100 hours of her tenure; she's a (fucking bitch) congresswoman. The President has the bully pulpit.

So far he has stunk up the place. It's one ill-advised move after another. The White House is obviously totally blindsided. They've played the same chord over and over again for years: "we'll do what we want to, and you guys just sit back and watch."

What do we get after the rout? Well, first Bush dumps Rumsfeld out on his ass. If he liked the guy so much, why did he turn on him so quickly? I mean, damn -- did Rumsfeld go into work the next day and find his card keys didn't work anymore?

Great way to handle defeat, Bush: turn on your allies. Seek political cover; stick Donald Rumsfeld's head on a stick and post it out on the White House lawn.

I mean, for God's sakes, why don't you host a parade down Pennslyvania Avenue and burn Condolezza Rice in effigy while you're at it?

Then there's the Bolton thing. The very day he asks to push it through, Lincoln Chafee kills it. What the Hell did they think would happen?

What next? Is Bush going to nominate Harriet Meiers to be the new UN Ambassador?

11/10/2006 5:34:28 AM

here come the san francisco values

11/10/2006 5:53:14 AM