Dems & Obama - Continue Estate Tax Rip Off

[autorank]

From Sean Paul Kelley a The Agonist:

The House will vote next week, Wednesday at the earliest, on estate tax legislation from Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D., N.D.), according to a schedule released by House Democratic leaders.

The Pomeroy bill would make permanent a 45% rate on inherited wealth, with the first $3.5 million exempt from the tax. Without congressional action, the tax will be repealed in 2010 and return in 2011 at a 55% rate with a $1 million exemption.

The Pomeroy legislation, backed by President Obama, would cost $233 billion over the next 10 years since it represents a tax cut when compared to current law. House Democrats earlier this year agreed that the cost of the bill would not have to be paid for--as long as Congress passes a law to make sure new discretionary spending or tax cuts are paid for in the future. Link

We're past the point of even needing to comment on this bull shit.

[Me.]

1. K + R

[autorank]

36. Look who has all the money

Welcome to the United States of The Money Party


Distribution of Wealth - http://tinyurl.com/yvatp

[sandnsea]

2. And again, this was the plan all along

From all Democrats except those who would like to just confiscate any inheritance. The right wants to do away with the "death tax" altogether, remember? This is a good bill.

[autorank]

5. The original tax was correct. This bill is a giveaway

"Without congressional action, the tax will be repealed in 2010 and return in 2011 at a 55% rate with a $1 million exemption." That's what it should be. That's the default. The measurement of the bills success is against this standard and it fails miserably.

[KittyWampus]

11. The exemption of 1 million is too low. That tax applies to thing that can increase in value

like LAND and FARM EQUIPMENT.

I've tried to have this argument on DU but it generally falls on deaf ears.

I support having an Estate Tax but it needs to reflect things like the value of real estate underneath an heir's feet.

[rfranklin]

17. All income should be treated as income...

and that includes capital gains and dividends. Inheritances are just another form of income. So tax it all at the same rate.

[inna]

40. If anything, capital gains and dividends should be treated at a HIGHER rate

than regular/payroll income.

But unfortunately, the system is hopelessly rigged for the rich, and by the rich.

[Gormy Cuss]

35. It fell on deaf ears because only a tiny fraction of estates, the largest, are affected.

In 2009 the estimate is that only 0.4% of all estates will owe estate tax. If the current law is allowed to expire, the estimate is that about 2.4% of all estates would be subject to estate taxes --again, a very small percent.

The USDA's Economic Research Service estimate is that only 2.9% of farm estates will be required to file a return in 2009 and only about half of them will owe estate tax. Of that group of farms owing estate tax, about 40% of the tax income will be commercial farms, not small family farms, even though commercial farms are estimated to be only 6% of farm estates..

There are also special provisions for family-owned farms and small businesses that do owe estate tax to pay it on an installment basis over fourteen years, with interest accruing only in the first five years.

There may be room to tweak these special circumstance rules, but throwing out the estate tax isn't warranted under the guise of protecting family farms and small family owned businesses.

[high density]

37. I agree, $1 million needs to be upped

Maybe they can go with $3.5 million and leave the 55% rate.

[LiberalFighter]

48. It is unearned income and should be taxed.

Maybe a slight deviation to help out real farmers otherwise screw the rest.

In the 38 years that my father worked with farmers he never heard of any farm going bankrupt or out of business because of the estate tax.

If a spouse remains the whole property is not taxed.

If there are partners such as sons, etc that are partners that portion of the estate is not taxed.

If there is more than one person inheriting the property the exemption is for each person.

[dems_rightnow]

57. Not true

There's no tax at all on the people inheriting, nor are there extra exemptions for leaving your estate to multiple people.

If there is a $100 million estate, the tax is the same whether you leave it all to one person, or $100 each to a million people.

[KittyWampus]

61. INCOME? Land isn't INCOME. Neither is equipment. They are not liquid.

[autorank]

66. Exactly - well said and valuablel

It is unearned income. The founders had no intention of setting up and aristocracy,despite the
bias toward property in the Constitution. Washington said, I will not be king! and he meant it. It
is refreshing and probably the best legend about him and true. No hereditary succession is he key
that made The Republic of Venice the most advance and richest nation in the world for centuries,
despite a lack of resources. It ties into hereditary privilege. You're right on target.

[Nite Owl]

12. That sounds fair enough.

What else will need to be cut to pay for this? It's domestic spending so raising the deficit is a big no-no unlike the Pentagon.

[sandnsea]

13. A million is way too low

I think it should be $6 million frankly, and then 55%. So a $3.5 million and 45% tax is a good compromise. This is really people looking for something to be pissed about.

[Go2Peace]

19. And this just moves them further along the road

how exactly do you think we got to the point where the rich 10% are accumulating 80% of all wealth? Incrementalism gets you there.

Nope, I am all for reasonable accomodation. If it is family farms they are worried about they can make other specific changes. But this is a giveaway. Not impressive.

[sandnsea]

32. Ack, there will be NO Estate Tax next year. NONE

That's what Republicans did. Now keep with the stupid mantra that Democrats are just like Republicans, and the people will figure there's no point in voting and you can be proud of helping to move more money into the billionaire's pockets.

There isn't a thing in the world wrong with this legislation. We've always had inheritance tax exemptions and there's no reason to not continue with it and adjust it for inflation.

[Go2Peace]

45. Only for a year then it returns to 55%. The honorable way to deal with this

would have been to extend the existing 2009 rate one more year. That would have been much simpler. Instead they took advantage of the FEAR to do another giveaway, following reaganomics and trickldown theory. This is a HUGE embarrasement for Obama.

[krispos42]

70. Really?

Hmph. I bet there's money to be made in the "fake-your-own-death" field as a result of this.

[NC_Nurse]

26. I agree. People here aren't going to listen though. One million is not a huge

amount anymore, and the $200+ billion that it will cost is a drop in the bucket to what we're spending/giving away to corporations like defense contractors, banks,
health insurance co's and big pharma. This would hurt family farms, folks who saved to leave money for disabled children, family businesses, etc. It will not touch the top 1%. The
folks that are getting those 50 million dollar bonuses will just take the money in stock options and rob the pension funds that hold their stock.

I salute your willingness to be flamed over this. :patriot:

[EC]

3. Sorry

I have no problem with it...

[rockymountaindem]

4. I would be alright with a higher rate and the higher exemption

One million dollars goes pretty quickly in a lot of the country with high property values, so that if you inherit a house and some cash/stocks you're going to hit that ceiling pretty quickly even if you're not exactly loaded. It seems the higher rate but with a bigger exemption should be a compromise we could all get behind, even the compromiser-in-chief.

Otherwise, yeah, it's another bummer from the Obama administration.

[sandnsea]

15. So you agree with the premise of the bill

But like me, you'd prefer a higher rate after the larger exemption - but somehow it's another bummer?? I don't get it. You basically support this rather than to leave things as is, or just do away with the estate tax altogether the way the right wants.

[rockymountaindem]

22. It's another bummer that he's supporting a lower rate

even for people who have tremendous estates. I know that Mr. Hilton has said Paris Hilton ain't going to get much in his will, but the rate she's going to pay for whatever "crumbs" she's going to receive is going to get cut from 55% to 45%. Whoop dee do.

[sandnsea]

33. Well there will be zero estate tax next year

Keep ranting about how horrible the Democrats are -- but don't be surprised when Republicans take control again.

You want a higher estate tax rate, then organize and make your case. But this constant pissing on Democrats over every tiny little thing is just pointless and juvenile.

[Go2Peace]

46. You're being a little dishonest here to make your point.

Yes, there will be a year without, but ONLY a year and you keep leaving that out. It would have been far more appropriate to have extended the 2009 another year to get over that hump.

From Wikipedia:

On January 1, 2010 a "one year repeal" of the tax is scheduled to be effectuated by a temporary, one-year-only rate of 0%, but on January 1, 2011 the estate tax is scheduled to return at a top rate of 55% and the exemption amount is scheduled to drop back down to $1.0 million. Many legislative tax analysts suspect that Congress and President Obama will not permit this legislatively scheduled repeal-and-increase scheme to actually go into effect between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. To avoid the temporary repeal and subsequent reinstatement of the tax at the higher rate, the 2009 rate of 45% and exemption amount of 3.5 million could be extended beyond December 31, 2009, or the rate and exemption amount could be permanently fixed at some amount greater than zero before that date.

[inna]

6. Huh???

:wtf: Who needs Republicans with "Democrats" like these??


This is just beyond words.

:banghead:

[sandnsea]

16. Republicans want to end the so-called "death tax"

They'd replace it with no tax at all. Not exactly the same as these Democrats at all.

[inna]

18. good point, thanks for a reminder/reality check.

One is a party of extreme right-wing fascists, the other one is a party of center-right corporatists.

Both represent the financial elites, not the people (with rare exceptions, of course).

[Go2Peace]

23. oh yes, the "kinder gentler argument", we'll only pick your pocket a little each day instead of all

at once.

Sorry, your argument does not cut it. This is still policy for the wealthy at the expense of the rich. So increase general taxation *first* on the upper incomes, and start moving toward where we were during the growth of the middle class, *then* you can discuss lowering estate taxes as something reasonable.

But currently they just get most everything they way, granted..incrementally, but it still continues the same direction.

[sandnsea]

30. The Bush Tax Cut expires next year

This is just one element that made some sense and is being extended, rather than allowing the estate tax to end altogether.

Still, my point is that in order to be like the Republicans you wouldn't be introducing this legislation at all.

Argue the policy all you want, but quit with the just like Republicans bullshit because it's just not the truth.

[slipslidingaway]

38. From the OP, the estate tax ends altogether for 1 year and then returns ...

at a higher rate.

"The Pomeroy bill would make permanent a 45% rate on inherited wealth, with the first $3.5 million exempt from the tax. Without congressional action, the tax will be repealed in 2010 and return in 2011 at a 55% rate with a $1 million exemption."

[Go2Peace]

47. Exactly, this is bullshit, they can simply extend the 2009 rate through 2010 and let the bill end

then.

[slipslidingaway]

55. But this is what we will be told instead ...

"...This is just one element that made some sense and is being extended, rather than allowing the estate tax to end altogether..."

Just like the TARP and HC bill, if you are not in favor then you must be for the status quo.

:(

[n2doc]

7. They really could care less about the deficit, could they?

An opportunity to just do nothing and raise some revenue, and they go ahead and give the rich another tax break.

I'd be ok with an increase in the exemption to 2-4 mil to reflect inflation, but frankly this is just borrowing from China so that Johnny trust fund has enough for another ferrari. Or a run for office.

[inna]

8. "The Pomeroy legislation, backed by President Obama, would cost $233 billion over the next 10 years"

Jesus christ. As if it already wasn't clear enough who Obama represents and works for.


This is beyond disgusting.

[autorank]

9. Getting clearer every day

Here's how it started

http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20090414/enabling_acts_for_an_era_of_greed_the_money_party_at_work

[formercia]

41. Privatize Profit and Socialize Debt.

I could live quite comfortably on a Million inheritance, but it's not going to happen.

There should be an exemption for family-owned and operated farms. Stocks, bonds, cash and other easily converted items should pay the max.

[Go2Peace]

21. disgusting.....

[progressoid]

10. Millionaires in Congress...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2008


Darrell Issa (R-Calif)
Jane Harman (D-Calif)
Herb Kohl (D-Wis)
Mark Warner (D-Va)
John Kerry (D-Mass)
Jared Polis (D-Colo)
Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)
Frank R Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
Michael McCaul (R-Texas)
Alan Grayson (D-Fla)
James E Risch (R-Idaho)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn)
Cynthia Marie Lummis (R-Wyo)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Harry Teague (D-NM)
Carolyn B Maloney (D-NY)
Gary Miller (R-Calif)
Nita M Lowey (D-NY)
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
Denny Rehberg (R-Mont)
Yvette D Clarke (D-NY)
Olympia J Snowe (R-Maine)
Kenny Marchant (R-Texas)
Mary L. Schapiro
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn)
John Campbell (R-Calif)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo)
Hillary Clinton
John McCain (R-Ariz)
John M Spratt Jr (D-SC)
Bill Foster (D-Ill)
David Dreier (R-Calif)
Kay R Hagan (D-NC)
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)
Fred Upton (R-Mich)
Michael F Bennet (D-Colo)
Rosa L DeLauro (D-Conn)
John Linder (R-Ga)
Alan B Mollohan (D-WVa)
Christopher J Lee (R-NY)
Adam H Putnam (R-Fla)
Jackie Speier (D-Calif)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Steve Kagen (D-Wis)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
F James Sensenbrenner Jr (R-Wis)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb)
Tom Petri (R-Wis)
Tom Price (R-Ga)
Trent Franks (R-Ariz)
Eric H. Holder
Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas)
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
John A Yarmuth (D-Ky)
Parker Griffith (D-Ala)
Scott Murphy (D-NY)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Allen Boyd (D-Fla)
Walter Clifford Minnick (D-Idaho)
Wally Herger (R-Calif)
Richard C Shelby (R-Ala)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
John Tanner (D-Tenn)
John Calvin Fleming Jr (R-La)
John A Barrasso (R-Wyo)
John L Mica (R-Fla)
James M Inhofe (R-Okla)
Al Franken (D-Minn)
Jim Moran (D-Va)
Sam Brownback (R-Kan)
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash)
Henry Brown (R-SC)
Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Peter Welch (D-Vt)
Steven Chu
James L Oberstar (D-Minn)
Kurt Schrader (D-Ore)
Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Michael N. Castle (R-Del)
Tom Latham (R-Iowa)
Bobby Bright (D-Ala)
Cliff Stearns (R-Fla)
Niki Tsongas (D-Mass)
Ron Wyden (D-Ore)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla)
Jim Cooper (D-Tenn)
Phil Gingrey (R-Ga)
Harry Reid (D-Nev)
Madeleine Z Bordallo (D-Guam)
Al Green (D-Texas)
John Ensign (R-Nev)
Paul E Kanjorski (D-Pa)
Robert F Bennett (R-Utah)
Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla)
Roscoe G Bartlett (R-Md)
Pete Stark (D-Calif)
Eric Cantor (R-Va)
Dave Camp (R-Mich)
John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Bill Nelson (D-Fla)
Tom Carper (D-Del)
Marion Berry (D-Ark)
Ken Calvert (R-Calif)
James Webb (D-Va)
Nathan Deal (R-Ga)
John Barrow (D-Ga)
Steven R Rothman (D-NJ)
Shaun L.S. Donovan
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Barack Obama (D)
Hal Rogers (R-Ky)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore)
Travis W Childers (D-Miss)
Arlen Specter (D-Pa)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Jo Bonner (R-Ala)
Daniel K Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Phil Roe (R-Tenn)
Judy Biggert (R-Ill)
Betsy Markey (D-Colo)
Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio)
Orrin G Hatch (R-Utah)
Jim Himes (D-Conn)
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif)
Tom Cole (R-Okla)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo)
Bill Pascrell Jr (D-NJ)
Jim Costa (D-Calif)
Eric K. Shinseki
David Scott (D-Ga)
John Carter (R-Texas)
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn)
Michael O Johanns (R-Neb)
Jack Kingston (R-Ga)
Jim Marshall (D-Ga)
Ron Paul (R-Texas)
Mike Conaway (R-Texas)
Ed Whitfield (R-Ky)
James P McGovern (D-Mass)
Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
John D Dingell (D-Mich)
Jeff Merkley (D-Ore)
Dean Heller (R-Nev)
Nick Rahall (D-WVa)
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif)
Ben Cardin (D-Md)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif)
Leonard Lance (R-NJ)
Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla)
Arne S. Duncan
Bill Cassidy (R-La)
Greg Walden (R-Ore)
Gerry Connolly (D-Va)
Mike D Rogers (R-Ala)
Evan Bayh (D-Ind)
Mazie K Hirono (D-Hawaii)
Joe Lieberman (I-Conn)
Stephen Ira Cohen (D-Tenn)
Carl Levin (D-Mich)
Sam Farr (D-Calif)
David Price (D-NC)
John Boozman (R-Ark)
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala)
Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif)
Paul Ryan (R-Wis)
Mike Thompson (D-Calif)
Luis V Gutierrez (D-Ill)
Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa)
Mary L Landrieu (D-La)
Ralph M Hall (R-Texas)
Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Mel Martinez (R-Fla)
Louise M Slaughter (D-NY)
Susan A Davis (D-Calif)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis)
Robert A Brady (D-Pa)
Dan Burton (R-Ind)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif)
Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)
Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif)
Robert B Aderholt (R-Ala)
Solomon P Ortiz (D-Texas)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md)
Robert E Latta (R-Ohio)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Roger Wicker (R-Miss)
Gary Peters (D-Mich)
Anna Eshoo (D-Calif)
Joseph A. Sestak, Jr (D-Pa)
Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill)
Jim Langevin (D-RI)
Christopher Kit" Bond (R-Mo)"
Vernon J Ehlers (R-Mich)
George V Voinovich (R-Ohio)
Dan Boren (D-Okla)
David Vitter (R-La)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Pat Roberts (R-Kan)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash)
Charles B Rangel (D-NY)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va)
Mike Enzi (R-Wyo)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Howard L Berman (D-Calif)
Timothy V Johnson (R-Ill)
Edward J Markey (D-Mass)
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
John H Adler (D-NJ)
Timothy F. Geithner
Thad Cochran (R-Miss)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark)
Charles Melancon (D-La)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WVa)
Peter R. Orszag
Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-Pa)
Doris O Matsui (D-Calif)
Connie Mack (R-Fla)
Bill Shuster (R-Pa)
John Hall (D-NY)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
Michael Burgess (R-Texas)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif)
Chris Dodd (D-Conn)
Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn)
Paul W Hodes (D-NH)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Mark Udall (D-Colo)
Leonard L Boswell (D-Iowa)
Pete Visclosky (D-Ind)
Ron Klein (D-Fla)
Peter Roskam (R-Ill)
Frank D Lucas (R-Okla)
Sam Graves (R-Mo)
Spencer Bachus (R-Ala)
Kathy Castor (D-Fla)
J Randy Forbes (R-Va)




http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5553408.shtml

[DemReadingDU]

43. Do we have a two-party system anymore?

Looks to me, we have one party - 'The Money Party', or call it 'The Lobbyists Party'. Do they really work for we the people? It's lobbyists buying the politicians to get legislation enacted to keep the status quo for the wealthy.

[leftstreet]

14. K&R

[autorank]

65. THNX!!!

:hi:

[slipslidingaway]

20. knr - H.R. 4154 - Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4154

[dysfunctional press]

24. what a crock. it should say 'permanent estate tax relief for the wealthy elite'.

because that's what it's really about.

[slipslidingaway]

28. Must have a nice title :) nt

[bvar22]

25. Why should The RIch pay for Obama's War ?

In times of deficits, this reduction in taxes on The RICH translates DIRECTLY into an INCREASE in the tax burden on the Middle Class!

Thanks again, "Democrats".

[autorank]

27. They don't have to fight it and now they won't pay for it

Why should they, they don't have to. It's The Money Party uber allis!

[slipslidingaway]

29. A little more history ...

http://www.congressmatters.com/story/2009/8/25/182143/796

"...At first blush, you'd think there'd be an opportunity for Republicans to mess with Dems on that estate tax provision. Why cooperate on extending the estate tax provision when you can obstruct that effort instead and let it expire? But as the article helpfully reminds us, the current state of the law is such that without action, the estate tax disappears entirely for one year, then comes back the following year at a much higher rate.

Why? This is where this issue touches current events most closely. This insane yo-yo-ing of the estate tax happens because the Republicans in 2001 used reconciliation to "eliminate" estate taxes -- actually, gradually reducing them and only eliminating them in 2010. But reconciliation, being a budgetary tool, reaches only as far as the window of the budget resolution that mandated it -- in this case, the ten years from FY2002 through 2011.

So why doesn't the tax stay at zero through fiscal year 2011 (which ends on September 30, 2010)? Because in addition to using the very same procedure they now insist is tantamount to the "nuclear option," to do this nonsense, they also had to affirmatively reinstate the tax at levels that will be considerably higher than they are now in order to rig the CBO scoring of their bill, because without this ridiculous reinstatement, their reconciliation bill added billions upon billions to the deficit. So they didn't even make it to the end of the budget window to begin with.

Bottom line: we'll be back in September with a real plateful, and a controversial tax mess that Republicans have every incentive in the world to mess with, but which was a disaster of their own making, and yet the fix for which they'll obstruct and then try to blame the consequences on the Democrats.

Should be fun!"

[Lasher]

71. So H.R. 4154 would rescind the one year estate tax repeal during 2010

And it would make permanent the 2009 exclusion amount of $3.5M ($7M for couples) and maximum tax rate of 45%. If no action is taken there will be no estate tax during 2010, then in 2011 it goes back into effect with an exclusion amount of $1M ($2M for couples) and a maximum tax rate of 55%.

There are other alternatives but given a choice between these two, I would just let it ride. H.R. 4154 would cost $233 billion over the next 10 years since it represents a tax cut when compared to current law. So over the long run the wealthy come out ahead even with elimination of the estate tax holiday next year. BTW, it looks like pay-go is being ignored in this case. We like to to that when cutting taxes for the wealthy, and when allocating funds for wars.

And I'm not so sure it would be a liability for Democrats to be blamed when the Estate Tax cuts sunset. I think the wealthy have gotten just about enough tax breaks already and guess what, that rising tide didn't lift all our boats. I am not alone in this sentiment.

But like you say it should be fun, particularly when this goes to the Senate. Some say the legislation will get a cold reception there. By another account the Senate will 'enhance' the $3.5M exclusion by indexing it to inflation. But you want some real fun? Pay for it with $233B in cuts to defense spending, then attach it to the health care legislation.

[blindpig]

31. k&r

[autorank]

50. Thnx!

[slipslidingaway]

34. We need to keep track of these bills so we can make our voices heard...

in advance of the votes instead of at the last minute.

IMO we should be making use of this forum...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=308

[QC]

39. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[autorank]

42. changealicious - very good! n/t

[QC]

54. Hopetacular! n/t

[autorank]

68. Futurama n/t

[Political Heretic]

44. The system is broken, and that system includes Democrats.

People like me, who once firmly believe that the Democratic party had enough of a core of working class values to facilitate "change from within" have been rudely awakened over the last 15 years to the word of complete financial dominance over all of national politics and all establishment parties.

Inserting a third party won't help, and what exists is beyond the point where it can be fixed.

All that's left, my friends is the collapse. Which is why I think its more important that we start passionately arguing for a return in our hearts to core values of solidarity with the poor and working class, socialism in whatever form (democratic socialism as advocated and implemented during the times of FDR, or the Great Society advance of Johnson, etc. OR socialism of some other sort) and economic justice. Because after the fall - its time to rebuild.

[autorank]

49. FDR would weep. I agree with everything you said

The notion that we're having some national confab to talk about jobs and economic stimulus right now
is ridiculous. Unemployment is out of control. What took them so long. Here's a nice chart on real unemployment - "official," "U6", the BLS figures with everybody not working included, and something that looks like the Great Depression rates of unemployment. We're in a depression, a naasty one:

http://www.shadowstats.com/charts_republish#emp

In addition, another recent initiative was announced by the WH, namely that we need to do more for community banks. Gee, they're the honest portion of banking establishment and they help local business and communities. Why did we wait until now to recognize their critical role?

When the Democrats promote war and ignore the 90% of the people at the expense of 10% (who control 70% of the wealth), we're in huge trouble.

I agree that a third party is way too much trouble. There will be one and god only knows what it will look like. But the Democratic Party needs to be retaken by the people it claims to represent. No more automatic voting, period.

USA Wealth Distribution: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

[blindpig]

64. Naw, it ain't broken

but it appears that they don't care about the curtain anymore.

[Romulox]

51. 'Bout time that the Democrats went to bat for those with $3.5M estates!

Dontcha just love "grass roots" politics?

[mod mom]

52. I fell for it again.

you'd think after believing Kerry was working on counting his votes, I wouldn't fall for trusting another candidate, but I did. I'm done wasting my time to get more of the same. I'm one of those voters that Kos and others are warning about. I've always voted in the past, but we'll see what the future holds. Definitely not a straight party ticket voter, but I proved that by backing Fitrakis & the Greens over our Corporate "clean coal/casino backing" Dem Governor.

:hi:

[autorank]

56. Time for an internal takeover

The Democratic Party has fine members, just lousy leadership and, for the most part, tepid leadership. I'm fine with Dick Durbin and Dennis Kucinich and some others. Let's get them in charge. But that's going to take a bit, if possible, and we're screwed right now.

1.8 million people voted vor Obama in Virginia in 2008. 0.8 million voted for the Democratic nominee for governor. Same type of defections in New Jersey. Hope has a rebound, it's called not voting.

Ugh! but :hi: anyway. Good to see you!

[Joanne98]

53. THAT SUX!!!!!

[autorank]

60. It's the third way;)

[Zynx]

58. Compared to what the Republicans want, which is a total repeal of the estate tax, this is fine.

The Republicans in 2005 were pushing for the permanent repeal. Politically, the issue is that there is one year where the estate tax disappears and then it would suddenly jolt back to 55% with a $1 million exemption. As a result some will say that the Democrats allowed the "death tax" to come back. This is a very reasonable alternative.

[autorank]

59. Who cares what some would say. It's what is necessary and fair that counts

The "death tax" is a non issue with the appropriate exemptions, and there are not that many, for this tax. The substitution of 1 mil limits with 3.5 mil after 10 years of very low inflation is a mockery
of current fiscal situation and of the participles behind inheritance tax.

This is a big giveaway of a program that never should have been changed.

[Go2Peace]

62. That is a false choice. Nobody would get such a bill through now. Incremental rape is still rape

Have you read what is really going on? All we have to do is extend the 2009 tax and it goes back to where it was in 2011. This is a red herring. What this really is is a democrat sponsered reduce the taxes on the rich bill. It's orwellian. Don't believe the spin!

[autorank]

63. Hey - we're doing it for "our children" and those of "others" in Afthanistan

Damn, time for a :kick:

[Sebastian Doyle]

67. The estate tax should be as high as it needs to be

To force Jenna Bush, and every other Bush spawn of that generation to have to work for a living. Same with anybody named Rockefeller, Hilton, and yeah, even Kennedy.

This perpetual psuedo-royalty crap is completely unamerican.

[autorank]

69. Amen!

[maryf]

72. kick nt

[Hubert Flottz]

73. The problem is dependency...

We have one real independent in Washington...the rest are dependants.

They owe Wall Street and the Old Money crowd so many favors, because they needed campaign cash to get into the catbird's seats they hold. A politician has long since ceased to be driven by his or her patriotism and have become dependant of the easy come easy go system that dictates to them. Energy travels the path of least resistance, even in Washington.

[slipslidingaway]

74. This bill just passed, vote link below ...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll924.xml

[inna]

75. i'm *completely* confused now.

From the roll call, this is a completely Democratic bill! Hey, Kucinich and Lee and Grayson and all the progressives as far as I can tell voted for it! WHAT am I missing??

[slipslidingaway]

76. Me too, Marcy Kaptur voted against it though. Just checking the cspan link....

there was some debate today, tomorrow the text will be up at cspan maybe that will help.

:shrug:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/congress/