Footwedge;431007 wrote: Jay, I really don't understand your "conservative" thinking on being pro nobility class or pro aristocracy class in having no estate tax for the extreme wealthy.

I never said "no estate tax", but 45-55% is ridiculous. I don't agree with the idea of double-taxing income that was already earned. If that makes me "pro-nobility" or "pro-aristocracy" then so be it. How about "pro-people-not-getting-plundered-after-they-die"?

Especially given the fact that conservatives espouse having a lower national debt. IMO, true conservatives would want their children to cut out their own niche in life, and work to make an honest living.

That's for parents to decide, not the government.

A perfect example of this would be Paris Hilton. What a waste of space on our planet. I'm not talking about a million dollars left to the kids...I'm talking about the Steinbrenners of the world.

Paris Hilton would still be Paris Hilton if her father's estate was taxed at 90% instead of whatever it was.

That flaming liberal Bill Gates has said no to leaving his kids money. Now I think shutting out the kids completely is ridiculous, but over and above that, I think he has the right idea.

Good for him. A private citizen deciding what to do with his own money- what a concept. Let him donate that money to whatever cause he feels he should. He didn't need a 55% estate tax to come to that decision.

ts1227;432249 wrote:That's a good way to explain Boehner.

It's obvious the R's will pick up seats, but I don't think they will get enough to regain a majority. At least from some local races/levies back home in May, the people doing all of the talking didn't show up to vote (and if they did, they're simply outnumbered). Now, that's a small sample size, but that seems to be the case in a lot of places.

I think people know the difference between local stuff in May and midterm Congressional elections in Nov.

jhay78;430982 wrote:It's a double-tax on income already earned.

This is untrue. The principle underlying the income tax is not to tax the same dollars to the same person twice. In the context of taxing an heir on the receipt of money via a wealth transfer at death, the heir is taxed one time as this money is earned; just like any windfall gain is taxed as it is earned. You have been duped, in the name of small government, into arguing for a position that is totally unequitable and unfair...you are arguing for certain, arbitrary accessions of wealth not to be taxed when all other kinds of accessions to wealth of this nature are taxed. It is not socialist, marxist, commie pinkoish to think that all persons who should receive windfall gains, whatever the form, should have to pay taxes on those gains as they are earned (if indeed we're going to live under an income tax). An heir receiving an estate and having to pay taxes on the gain is paying tax, 1 time, as it is earned.

cbus4life;430498 wrote:I think it is a definite possibility, and wouldn't be shocked at all if it happened...Democrats deserve it.

With that said...i think Boehner is just about as big a douche as Pelosi is, just different sides of the aisle...

I agree. All Boehner has done is to oppose Obama. The Repubs haven't proposed any good alternatives.

ccrunner609;433960 wrote:Pubs havent offered anything good?

Really?

Nope....not really

No,because all they've done is say "No,we arent voting for that and No,you shouldn't do that" instead of offering up any real ideas

The whole "the Republicans haven't offered any suggestions and only say no" thing is a bald faced lie.

The Republicans offered several alternatives to Obamacare -- of course NONE of it got any publicity because the media is in the bag for Obama. I'd be very surprised if there aren't some other good ideas from Republicans in Congress that few have heard about simply because the press has already decided for us what they think is best.

Oh and I might also add: saying NO to irresponsible spending is not a bad thing. It's what a good representative should do.

In any event...stop lying.

I'm not lying....


They did not offer ANY viable alternatives to the Health Care Reform bill....NONE

gibby08;434131 wrote:I'm not lying....


They did not offer ANY viable alternatives to the Health Care Reform bill....NONE

I think they did. The word "viable" is subjective in a hundred different ways, though.
Please clarify: What do you mean as far as "viable"? Something that would fit the democratic mold? Or something that might actually be beneficial and work?

gibby08;434131 wrote:I'm not lying....


They did not offer ANY viable alternatives to the Health Care Reform bill....NONE

Actually, they offered three. None of which were even granted a reading.

gibby08;434131 wrote:I'm not lying....


They did not offer ANY viable alternatives to the Health Care Reform bill....NONE

It's called "not having a majority in either house of Congress".

gibby08;434131 wrote:I'm not lying....


They did not offer ANY viable alternatives to the Health Care Reform bill....NONE

It is NOT a health care REFORM bill -------- you have been completely duped. It is anything but REFORM. And it is not just 2,700 pages of law, it is in reality over 3 MILLION PAGES OF NEW REGULATIONS! It is by far the largest legislative disaster in the history of the country, and it needs to be repealed immediately upon conservatives taking back majority in congress in January.

QuakerOats;435374 wrote:It is NOT a health care REFORM bill -------- you have been completely duped. It is anything but REFORM. And it is not just 2,700 pages of law, it is in reality over 3 MILLION PAGES OF NEW REGULATIONS! It is by far the largest legislative disaster in the history of the country, and it needs to be repealed immediately upon conservatives taking back majority in congress in January.

1.Not even close

2.Not going to happen

QuakerOats;435374 wrote:It is NOT a health care REFORM bill -------- you have been completely duped. It is anything but REFORM. And it is not just 2,700 pages of law, it is in reality over 3 MILLION PAGES OF NEW REGULATIONS! It is by far the largest legislative disaster in the history of the country, and it needs to be repealed immediately upon conservatives taking back majority in congress in January.

Opposition to Health Care Law Declining
The latest Kaiser tracking poll finds opposition to the landmark health care law signed into law by President Obama in March has declined over the past month, from 41% to 35%.

Meanwhile, 50% held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48% a month ago, and the highest level since the legislation was enacted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html?hpid=topnews

gibby08;435490 wrote:Opposition to Health Care Law Declining
The latest Kaiser tracking poll finds opposition to the landmark health care law signed into law by President Obama in March has declined over the past month, from 41% to 35%.

Meanwhile, 50% held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48% a month ago, and the highest level since the legislation was enacted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html?hpid=topnews

Now Gibby, you know the rule: No citing statistics from sources with Liberal or Conservative leanings (or was that just Conservative?).

The best part about that link you posted, is that it gives another link to other WaPo polls, and the headline on that page is priceless:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling.html

Laughable; I wonder what kind of dance you will be doing on Nov 2nd ...

QuakerOats;435500 wrote:Laughable; I wonder what kind of dance you will be doing on Nov 2nd ...

I'll be doing the happy dance when we retain both houses of congress

jhay78;435498 wrote:Now Gibby, you know the rule: No citing statistics from sources with Liberal or Conservative leanings (or was that just Conservative?).

The best part about that link you posted, is that it gives another link to other WaPo polls, and the headline on that page is priceless:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling.html

You know what else is really funny jhay,if you click on the link,Republicans still have lower rating than him or other Dems

ccrunner609;430385 wrote:Do you realize how stupid this tax is? Its a tax on rich white people because poor minorities dont tan.

How about other taxes that are welcomed back by the left? Do you think its fair that if you die next year that 45% of everything you have is handed over to the government instead of the family of the dead person? Does the government own us after death?

poor whites tan also

poor whites tan also

I don't think that poor white folk are in the habit of visiting tanning salons.

gibby08;435508 wrote:I'll be doing the happy dance when we retain both houses of congress

I can't wait to see how long you go into hiding after Election Day. My money is on a week...that should give you enuff time to compile enough crap to try and put some lame positive spin on your ass-kicking.

fish82;435604 wrote:I can't wait to see how long you go into hiding after Election Day. My money is on a week...that should give you enuff time to compile enough crap to try and put some lame positive spin on your ass-kicking.

I won't need to go anywhere...because I will have no reason to...but I wouldn't be suprised to see Quaker,Writer,and yourself go into hiding though

Prescott;435560 wrote:I don't think that poor white folk are in the habit of visiting tanning salons.

They do all the time around here

1. The Estate Tax is very immoral in my opinion because it taxes money that has already been taxed when it was made as income. Why should it be anyone's concern who leaves what to their children?

2. Even if the Republicans do take control of BOTH houses of Congress, there will still be no repeal of ObamaCare because Obama would still veto any attempt and the Republicans will not have a large enough majority to override a veto. After 2012 would be the earliest such a repeal could occur. There is still an outside chance that the Supreme Court could overturn it by then (God Willing).

It's nice to come back every once and again just to see how teabaggers such as Writer, Quaker and Fish continue to spread their message on this forum. Perhaps the TanMan will become Speaker after the elections are over. It's entirely possible that he will enact legislation which would reverse what has already been passed. It's also entirely possible that he will understand the meaning of the word "veto" and know that he doesn't have the two-thirds majority needed to override it. When all you have to offer is "No" and "Repeal", it makes sense to have the votes. Even if Boehner and his teabagging buddies regain control of either chamber they won't have the two-thirds majority it will take to get anything done. Then they will be seen as the "do-nothing" Congress and will have to explain their actions to the American people.

Louie,

Personally I don't care if the republicans say not to stupid-ass legislation that nobody read.

You mean that actually bothers you that they didn't want to say yes? It bothers you that they want to repeal it?

Do you realize that just anything is not always better than nothing?

Hellloooooo!