Why should Bush be impeached?

[NotWorthy]

Thekla:

The fact is that Mr. Bush became president with less votes than Mr. Gore. And when that happened, he had a choice on style of governance; to either govern from a position of absolute power or to recognize the unique circumstances of his presidency. He chose the former.

Since the Democrats held the majority (thanks to "Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords), how can you claim absolute power?

Thekla:

Starting with enormous tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens to a Medicare drug program, of exhorbitant expense, that enriches insurance companies and HMO’s, there seems to be no interest in our collective financial health.

First of all, if the hate started with the Tax Cuts, I’d give you credit for that statement. The Hate started when Bush received the nomination.

Second of all, no “Tax Cuts for the Wealthy” heckler has been able to explain why the Rich pay a higher percent of the Taxes after the Tax Cuts then before.

Thirdly (?), when we say cutting taxes cuts income, why does federal income increase EVERY TIME taxes are cut???

Notworthy

 

[gilliam]

I think the hate started with Clinton was impeached.

It grew worse when someone from the Republican establishment was elected to office. How the two parties played with Florida didn’t help any.

But the real hate came when Bush decided to try to show a little moral fortitude, put Ashcroft in as Attorney General and was not overly welcome to the homosexual and hedonistic communities as Clinton was. Immediately Hollywood and the MSM decided to attack him and have attacked him ever since.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Thekla:

Starting with enormous tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens

When you say things like the hate started when he gave tax cuts to the “wealthiest of Americans” you seem to forget or don’t know that a lot of small businesses such as LLCs, LPs, S-Corps, etc. are taxed on the owner’s personal tax returns. So the monies that go to pay the employees are taxed as the owner’s revenue and monies that go to pay for more products are taxed as the owners revenue etc. in reality what they are doing is cutting taxes for small business growth, small business are the backbone of the American economy (I myself own an LLC). So please, get educated on the subject and stop claiming it’s for the wealthiest of Americans. Most small business owners work 80+ hours a week and are earning less in their first few years than most people that work 40 hour a week jobs and often times fail. They need all the support they can get, so please, cut the propaganda. I had you on ignore but I saw Notworthy’s reply to you and just had to respond to this…

 

[NotWorthy]

gilliam:

I think the hate started with Clinton was impeached.

It grew worse when someone from the Republican establishment was elected to office. How the two parties played with Florida didn’t help any.

But the real hate came when Bush decided to try to show a little moral fortitude, put Ashcroft in as Attorney General and was not overly welcome to the homosexual and hedonistic communities as Clinton was. Immediately Hollywood and the MSM decided to attack him and have attacked him ever since.

I think that’s a rather fair and accurate assessment. Don’t forget the part the media played in the whole Florida debacle. Do you think they knew that the Panhandle was heavily Republican, and by calling the race an hour early, they cost Bush about a 10,000 margin?

Notworthy

 

[2shelbys]

NotWorthy:

I think that’s a rather fair and accurate assessment. Don’t forget the part the media played in the whole Florida debacle. Do you think they knew that the Panhandle was heavily Republican, and by calling the race an hour early, they cost Bush about a 10,000 margin?

Notworthy

Not only that. But they called Florida for Gore when only 23% of the vote was in and Bush was still leading. At the same time, Bush had won Georgia, Tennesee (Gore’s home state) and one of the Carolina’s with more than 80% of the vote in but they did not call them for several hours. The media’s attempt to give everyone the impression of a Gore landslide was obvious.

Also, Gore’s people made the despicable move of filing for an injunction in Florida to block the counting of all overseas absentee ballots because they knew military ballots break about 85% Republican. As far as I know, those ballots were never counted because Bush had already won. Even if they had gone only 75% for Bush it would have more than overcome Gore’s fictional lead.

 

[2shelbys]

Thekla:

Starting with enormous tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens …

Oh come on Thekla, I did not think anyone was still falling for that nonsense. The tax cuts were biggest for the lowest earners. Afterward, the top 10% of earners were still paying more than 80% of the total tax collected. That lie was based on the fact that the cut that the wealthest people got was a higher dollar amount but OF COURSE IT WAS. When someone gets back 3% of the $90,000 they paid they are going to get more back than the people who got back 18% of the $5,000.00 they paid. The bottom line is that the less you made the higher percentage cut you received. It is public information, look it up.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Thekla:

Then why are you promoting IMPEACHMENT if you don’t know if you have the grounds? And, Since he was reelected by a true majority and had the longest coattails since any REELECTED President since Franklin Roosevelt in 1934, who, exactly, holds him in “Low regard”? Again, Since the preceding is a fact and not fiction, how can you say he didn’t listen to the majority of American citizens?

I criticize President Bush all the time, but I’ve never questioned his legitamacy as President or his right to rule in that office as he sees the right. So, I’ve never been called any of the things that you claim Republicans call those who criticize President Bush.

Could it be that Republicans and those who support President Bush know that it just isn’t worth the breath and the paper to argue with those who can’t even accept him as President of of the United States? And, could it be that there are none so deaf as those who HATE the President that they can’t PRAY for him and his welfare and ask that God grant him wisdom and fortitude?..

Thekla:

I don’t know that he deserves to be impeached because I don’t know enough about the necessary grounds for impeachment. But I’ll answer the question about why his policies, and in turn he, are so disliked and held in low regard.

You know, when people say that Mr. Bush is hated, they really aren’t listening to what the majority of Americans are saying about the direction of the country. They simply dismiss all criticism as some sort of national personal hangup and plug their own ears. It’s the same deafness we see exhibited by our leadership.

The fact is that Mr. Bush became president with less votes than Mr. Gore. And when that happened, he had a choice on style of governance; to either govern from a position of absolute power or to recognize the unique circumstances of his presidency. He chose the former.

Mr. Bush staked out his allegiance early in his presidency and has shown no sign of deviation. For many of us, and my family is in a wealthy, left-tilting area, there has been a squandering of the financial well-being of the nation in order to benefit “the elite” of the country. Actions that appear so immoral that we cannot separate the man from the policy. Starting with enormous tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens to a Medicare drug program, of exhorbitant expense, that enriches insurance companies and HMO’s, there seems to be no interest in our collective financial health.

And then there is Iraq.

Thekla, how do you know that Gore got more votes than Bush? Esp. considering that most states, when the vote in those states are not close, do NOT count ABSENTEE BALLOTS!

Do you have any idea how many ABSENTEE BALLOTS weren’t counted NATIONWIDE in 2000? And, How many of those NATIONWIDE were MILITARY BALLOTS? (over 3 million and nearly 1 million nationwide since over 5% of the general populace voted absentee, and almost all the Military voted absentee)

ABSENTEE BALLOTS tend to vote REPUBLICAN and military BALLOTS do that even more so!

How many ABSENTEE VOTES for BUSH do you think weren’t counted?? Do you think it just might have been enough to give BUSH the PLURALITY??

If ALL the votes had been counted in all the States nationwide instead of the limited recount of urban Democratic areas the Democrats demanded, can you see how the result just might have been different from what you and your friends think it would have been?

Others have dealt pretty well with the “TaxCuts”. I can only add this: In the Early 1950’s President John Kennedy’s economic advisors saw that the high taxes enacted by Truman and Eisenhower were causing a recession and that it could become a depression.

Kennedy acted quickly - He did a huge accross the board Tax Cut, which cut the Top Marginal Rate to less than what Bush’s top marginal rate is.

It worked - The USA was able to pay for the Great Society, the Space Race and Vietnam all on the economic boom started by Kennady;'s Tax Cut.

Bush’s tax cut was passed for the same reason and has had the same effect.

When were you planning to criticize President John Kennedy for his massive tax cuts for the wealthy?

Regarding Iraq - The Iraqi people were enslaved by a demonic mass murdering tyrant who slaughtered some 500,000 Iraqis from 1990 to 2002.

Now the Iraqi people have the only representative democracy governing a majority Arab-Islamic country.

Why are you opposed to that?

And regarding Bush’s actions ,esp. after 9/11 - This country needed decisive leadership, and he needed to take action to make sure that the terrorists couldn’t pull off a similar set of attacks again.

Would you have rather that Bush responded as Clinton did to all of the other attacks against our country, which was what led to the attack in the first place?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Al_Masetti]

MikeWM:

Yes, that’s right. Nevertheless he hasn’t, and until such time as he chooses to do so, it has the same legality as domestic law (it just can be altered more easily).

Mike

Mike,

You have to stop making stuff up.

• Al

P.S. I apologize if I’m rude, but really…

 

[MikeWM]

Al Masetti:

Mike,

You have to stop making stuff up.

• Al

P.S. I apologize if I’m rude, but really…

What precisely have I made up?

a) Treaties passed by the Senate are part of the law
b) The UN Charter has been passed by the Senate

Now you may argue that it is a special type of law, given the President has power to change it himself, but given that he hasn’t done so, the UN Charter is currently part of US domestic law.

The President can’t choose to ignore it without declaring that he is overriding the law. The same way that he can’t wiretap under FISA without going to the FISA court (whether he can outside FISA or not is still the debated question, AFAICS).

I’ve no idea what you think I’ve made up. Please enlighten me.

Mike

 

[Al_Masetti]

Thekla:

.

The fact is that Mr. Bush became president with less votes than Mr. Gore. And when that happened, he had a choice on style of governance; to either govern from a position of absolute power or to recognize the unique circumstances of his presidency. He chose the former.

Starting with enormous tax cuts for our wealthiest citizens to a Medicare drug program, of exhorbitant expense, that enriches insurance companies and HMO’s, there seems to be no interest in our collective financial health.

And then there is Iraq.

I’m not sure if you are a U.S. citizen or not. Or if at any point in your education you studied or read the U.S. Constitution. Or if you studied previous presidential elections or the system that has been operating for a couple of hundred years.

But the rules are there for everyone to study. The United States is not and has never been a democracy. The United States is a republic. The United States consists of 50 states and a central government. HOWEVER, under the Constitution, the central government is (supposed to be) SEVERELY limited in its powers. In order to limit the influence of the central government, the power to elect ONLY THE HEAD OF ONE [hint: executive branch] OF THE THREE BRANCHES of the central government lies with the states… (the electors are appointed by the states). The number of electors assigned to each state is determined by the population of each state.

There are two other branches of the central government: the legislature and the judiciary. To further water down the power of the central government, the legislature is divided into two “houses”. One “house” has members who are directly elected, in proportion to the population of the individual states. The other “house” members are simply assigned two per state. This is designed to prevent large population states from totally dominating small population states. Originally, the members of the “house” with two per state were selected by the various state legislatures. This was intended to prevent someone who was “popular” from winning… intended to prevent demogogues from winning election. Eventually, direct election of senators was voted in as a change.

In a nutshell that’s the way the system was set up.

I have not “personalized” the system — yet.

However, keep in mind that Mr. Clinton, who is mentioned above, never got even a majority of the vote.

Keep in mind on the point about taxes, that the truly wealthy pay NO taxes and never have. They have trusts and trust funds which are expensive to maintain, BUT serve to insulate the wealthy from taxation, control and legal liability. Try suing someone whose car is owned by a trust!! ] And they have personal staffs of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants to make sure that their affairs remain tax free and if possible safe from prying eyes. Numerous articles have appeared lately about the candidates who refuse to publish their tax returns or who politicians whose personal financial affairs take advantage of the very rules they decry. If you would like me to mention specific politicians, I would be please to do so. But probably you already know who they are.

The only people who pay taxes are the middle class.

The poor are for the most part exempt from paying taxes.

• Al

P.S. Strong post to follow.

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

Not only that. But they called Florida for Gore when only 23% of the vote was in and Bush was still leading. At the same time, Bush had won Georgia, Tennesee (Gore’s home state) and one of the Carolina’s with more than 80% of the vote in but they did not call them for several hours. The media’s attempt to give everyone the impression of a Gore landslide was obvious.

Why would that be to Gore’s benefit? Everyone knew it was going to be a close election. The perception that Gore was winning would make voters for Gore stay home and get Bush supporters running to the polling station, surely?

And your media all need to stop ‘revealing’ the results until the entire country has finished voting. In Britiain, the media aren’t allowed to give you any polls, predicted results, or anything else, until the minute the polls close. It seems insane to be giving results for some states while other states are still voting.

Also, Gore’s people made the despicable move of filing for an injunction in Florida to block the counting of all overseas absentee ballots because they knew military ballots break about 85% Republican. As far as I know, those ballots were never counted because Bush had already won. Even if they had gone only 75% for Bush it would have more than overcome Gore’s fictional lead.

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the right place to go over every detail of what happened in 2000, but there were a spiralling series of ever more bizarre lawsuits. I remember a Gore one that wanted to throw out absentee ballots that were irregular (wrong date, or no date) which seemed fair enough. There may well have been another one for all ballots too though.

You must be quite annoyed with the Supreme Court verdict in Bush v Gore then, yourself. If they had let all the ballots be counted, you obviously think Bush would have won. That would have increased his legitimacy and prevented claims of ‘the supreme court elected him’.

Mike

 

[2shelbys]

MikeWM:

Why would that be to Gore’s benefit? Everyone knew it was going to be a close election. The perception that Gore was winning would make voters for Gore stay home and get Bush supporters running to the polling station, surely?

Actually quite the reverse. If Republican voters thought that Gore had already run away with it they would figure there was no use in voting.

And your media all need to stop ‘revealing’ the results until the entire country has finished voting. In Britiain, the media aren’t allowed to give you any polls, predicted results, or anything else, until the minute the polls close. It seems insane to be giving results for some states while other states are still voting.

Absolutely right. This is something I have been saying for years. There should be a virtual blackout of voting results information until the last polls close in Hawaii.

You must be quite annoyed with the Supreme Court verdict in Bush v Gore then, yourself. If they had let all the ballots be counted, you obviously think Bush would have won. That would have increased his legitimacy and prevented claims of ‘the supreme court elected him’.

Not really. They kept the Democrats from violating the law (even more than they had). Besides, the liberal newspapers in Florida kept doing recounts for weeks after the election and with each new recount Bush’s lead grew. Anyone who thinks Gore won is fooling themselves.

 

[MikeWM]

2shelbys:

Actually quite the reverse. If Republican voters thought that Gore had already run away with it they would figure there was no use in voting.

How odd. One word I wouldn’t use about Republicans usually is ‘defeatist’. I’d expect them to be more determined if they thought they were behind, not just give up and sulk.

Absolutely right. This is something I have been saying for years. There should be a virtual blackout of voting results information until the last polls close in Hawaii.

I’m amazed it is thought to be acceptable any other way.

Not really. They kept the Democrats from violating the law (even more than they had). Besides, the liberal newspapers in Florida kept doing recounts for weeks after the election and with each new recount Bush’s lead grew. Anyone who thinks Gore won is fooling themselves.

I don’t think it has been determined either way, because of the different standards that were used by the different recounters. There should have been one standard picked, applied to the whole of Florida, and the count determined in that manner (whoever turned out the winner). Of course that is partly Gore’s fault too, his lawyers were doing a poor job in many respects. Although it shouldn’t be the quality of lawyer you have that determines the result (though in practice, it does affect it, of course).

Mike

 

[Traditional_Ang]

MIke:

I was shocked at the performance. Anyone who’s a Democrat knows about the 1980, 1984 and 1988 elections - Talk about voting when the main issue had already been decided!

Well, when 2000 rolld around, and the MSM effectively called the election for Gore while most of the polls in the country were still open, I thought the Republicans would at least do what we did then and get a little angry and go vote just to spite the MSM…

MikeWM:

How odd. One word I wouldn’t use about Republicans usually is ‘defeatist’. I’d expect them to be more determined if they thought they were behind, not just give up and sulk.

…Instead, they decided that President Al Gore / “Name of Local Democratic Congressperson” just didn’t sound all that bad, u-turned the car so it was heading home instead of to the polls and popped open a can of Bud.

It was absolutely appalling!

Regarding Florida - What 2shelbys is trying to point out is that, when Impartial Third partyObservers (Journalists from the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times and the Washington Post - Hardly bastions of conservatism) applied a uniform code, BUSH WON! They tried a total of 10 different standards, and President Bush won handily in 19 of 19 Manual recounts, and that was WITHOUT the MILITARY BALLOTS Al Gore’s Lawyers had thrown out!..

MikeWM:

I don’t think it has been determined either way, because of the different standards that were used by the different recounters. There should have been one standard picked, applied to the whole of Florida, and the count determined in that manner (whoever turned out the winner). Of course that is partly Gore’s fault too, his lawyers were doing a poor job in many respects. Although it shouldn’t be the quality of lawyer you have that determines the result (though in practice, it does affect it, of course).

Mike

…The 19th had Gore winning by under 100 votes. Over 3,000 total Military Ballots were thrown out by Gore’s Lawyers. 65-70% of absentee military voters reliably vote Republican. That’s why Gore’s lawyers had them tossed out.

Mike, If the Military Ballots had been counted by the newspapers on all 19 recounts, what do you think their results would have been? Do you think we would even had had a controversy?

If the Florida electors had counted the military ballots as agreed in the CONSENT DECREE and had not been cowed by Gore’s lawyers and their threats of multiple lawsuits, what do you think the result of the original recount would have been?

Do you think we’d even be discussing “The Crime of Florida”?

Mike, since the only CRIME that happened there was the denial of the suffrage to black and brown members of the American armed forces by legal representatives of the Gore campaign and by cowardly electoral boards cowed by their threats, could we now please drop that ludicrous charge against President Bush?

Here’s an FYI, “Like Father, Like Son”, Al Gore’s actions in denying the suffrage to those membersof the military was quite consistent with both his and his father’s votes on the Voting Rights Bill.

You might want to look those votes up. Al Gore was hardly the mensch you thought he was.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Al_Masetti]

One REALLY curious thing about the Florida vote count controversy is that the counties in question, where they wanted selective recounts, were all solidly Democrat counties. There were allegations about the ballots being incorrectly filled out. Although these were standard ballots, they were impugning their own Democrat voters’ skills in managing the ballots.

There were also allegations that the local Democratic political machine had “fixed” the balloting; but since these were Democrat controlled areas, it means that the only real incompetents were the Democrats who controlled the political process in those areas – they couldn’t even do a competent job of rigging the election in their own precincts.

Another of the curiousities was that Pat Buchanan had a heavy vote, but then he had scored heavily earlier, as I recall.

As I recall, and my recall may be faulty, the Democrats definitely did not want to recount or reballot in heavily Republican areas. ONLY in heavily Democrat areas. There are still allegations of illegal voters (convicts, illegal aliens, dead people… the usual suspects, as well as people who voted twice… in Florida AND in New York.)

 

[Thekla]

NotWorthy:

Since the Democrats held the majority (thanks to "Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords), how can you claim absolute power?

First of all, if the hate started with the Tax Cuts, I’d give you credit for that statement. The Hate started when Bush received the nomination.

Second of all, no “Tax Cuts for the Wealthy” heckler has been able to explain why the Rich pay a higher percent of the Taxes after the Tax Cuts then before.

Thirdly (?), when we say cutting taxes cuts income, why does federal income increase EVERY TIME taxes are cut???

Notworthy

You asked the question and I answered. Now you want to argue tax policy, which I’m not opposed to doing, but it really is just one component of the dislike and low regard achieved by Mr. Bush.

For more than 25 years, supply side advocates have claimed that cutting taxes would lead to higher savings, greater investments, stronger growth and smaller deficits. These claims have been repeatedly disproven by events. The savings rate has fallen from 13% to zero. 25 years ago, investments were 14% of GDP. They went down under Reagan, back up under Clinton, and have gone back down under Mr. Bush.

All that supply-side economic policies have accomplished is to turn the US from the world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor. It’s really based on the false premise that cutting individual taxes will lead to greater investments. But personal savings have essentially nothing to do with investments. And it’s the sustainability of cutting personal taxes to increase federal revenues that has never born out.

But as I said, the drive for lowering the taxes of the wealthiest Americans is only one component of a misguided, and possibly immoral, financial policy; I won’t even go into the sickness of an administration that drives the nation into debt while attempting to further reduce the inheritance tax on the children of millionaires.

I think that Mr. Bush said it plainly in an address to his donors. He may have been joking, but the joke matches reality. He said, “Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.” And I’ve seen no deviation in his allegiance or focus in using every avenue of government, from tax policy to federal programs, to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

And then there is Iraq.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Mike:

That may be the way way it is in the UK, but in the USA, the perception that one party is winning will cause the people in the other party to stay home, while people in that party line up at the polls.

Republicans were the beneficiaries of this efect in 1980, 1984 and 1988. The MSM intentionally created the effect for Gore so that the Democrats were the beneficiaries in 2000…

MikeWM:

Why would that be to Gore’s benefit? Everyone knew it was going to be a close election. The perception that Gore was winning would make voters for Gore stay home and get Bush supporters running to the polling station, surely?

And your media all need to stop ‘revealing’ the results until the entire country has finished voting. In Britiain, the media aren’t allowed to give you any polls, predicted results, or anything else, until the minute the polls close. It seems insane to be giving results for some states while other states are still voting.

…It’s called “Freedom of the Press”, and it took the fiasco of 2000 for everyone to see that government had an interest in curtailing it in some circumstances.
So, in 2004, they weren’t llowed to call states until the voters in most states had had a chance to vote - This was much closer to he UK system than what was there previously.

I think the general acceptance of the election (8% of Americans still believe Elvis is alive so I ignore most any electoral number lower than 8%) where most Americans accepted the results can be partly traced to that.

The 2,400 “Irregular Ballots” that the Gore Lawyers got thrown out were MILITARY BALLOTS that should have been counted as a result of a FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE made in the 1980’s… The irregularities were considered “regular” under the consent decree. Prior to the Consent Decree, Florida Law had required that MILITARY Personnel voting Absentee get the signatures of Officers who were registered to vote IN THE SAME DISTRICTS as the soldiers/sailers/airmen voting absentee, that these ballots show the addresses these were mailed from and not the military APX which is used when soldiers are deployed and that the envelops be STAMPED AND POSTMARKED - Military Mail from deployed troops is NEVER stamped or postmarked!

These requirements were therefore impossible for soldiers/sailers/airmen who where deployed into war zones to follow. That was the determination of the US Dept. of Justice (1980’s) and a the FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT and was agreed to by the State of Florida, which agreed to accept MILITARY BALLOTS signed by the soldiers/sailers/airmen and either their co’s or other soldiers/sailors/airmen from their districts, mailed from the military APX without stamps or postmarks.

That is how ALL Military Ballots sent in by depoyed troops is accepted, and counted in all Presidential Elections in the US.

These were the Ballots that the lawyers from the Gore campaign got thrown out. How they did it is one of the most shameful periods in the history of the Democratic Party to which I belonged. What made it even more shameful is who is was done to and why it was done to them…

MikeWM:

I’m pretty sure this isn’t the right place to go over every detail of what happened in 2000, but there were a spiralling series of ever more bizarre lawsuits. I remember a Gore one that wanted to throw out absentee ballots that were irregular (wrong date, or no date) which seemed fair enough. There may well have been another one for all ballots too though.

You must be quite annoyed with the Supreme Court verdict in Bush v Gore then, yourself. If they had let all the ballots be counted, you obviously think Bush would have won. That would have increased his legitimacy and prevented claims of ‘the supreme court elected him’.

Mike

…Mike, the Democrats were sending out vote counts almost like a horse race, hoping Gore would pull ahead in the counting at some point so that they could claim that Gore somehow won Florida. To insure this, the Democrats also sent people down into the recount rooms who were skilled at “Manufacturing votes” and “nullifying votes”. Every time they handled the ballots, Bush’s lead shrank.

I 'm old enough to remember the “Chicago Machine” and how much it realied on people who could “Punch out” extra votes. So, I’m old enough not to trust a process that involves these people when they’ve been told to acheive a result.

They had already browbeat several county electoral boards into violating a consent decree and insisting that a Law which had been voided be applied to Military Ballots sent from service personnel deployed to war zones.

Would you have trusted a party willing to go to those ends to win an election? Or, Do you think you might have been happy when the Supremes put an end to the nonesense?

Why can’t you accept that President Bush is President of the United States and just pray for the man?

In Christ, Michael

 

[thestickman]

Thekla:

But as I said, the drive for lowering the taxes of the wealthiest Americans is only one component of a misguided, and possibly immoral, financial policy;

Only in the minds of people who think they have a right to other people’s money do you hear/read such a perspective, as a rule.

I won’t even go into the sickness of an administration that drives the nation into debt while attempting to further reduce the inheritance tax on the children of millionaires.

Yeah that same sickness is apart of the same ol leftist elitism which presumes the state has more right to the money people earn than the people do. That people who make money shouldn’t be allowed (unless your last name is Kennedy, of course) to pass along wealth from one generation to the next. Oh, and then there’s the sickness where the left whines and moans about the rich getting a tax break but is stone cold silent on keeping wealth stored off-shore as tax-free as tax-free can be.

It is immoral for folks on the left to feel they-the-State has more of a right to decide how much $$$ someone has or is allowed to keep than the people who actually earn it or pass the money they earned on to their children, IMO.

 

[2shelbys]

thestickman:

Only in the minds of people who think they have a right to other people’s money do you hear/read such a perspective, as a rule.

Yeah that same sickness is apart of the same ol leftist elitism which presumes the state has more right to the money people earn than the people do. That people who make money shouldn’t be allowed (unless your last name is Kennedy, of course) to pass along wealth from one generation to the next. Oh, and then there’s the sickness where the left whines and moans about the rich getting a tax break but is stone cold silent on keeping wealth stored off-shore as tax-free as tax-free can be.

It is immoral for folks on the left to feel they-the-State has more of a right to decide how much $$$ someone has or is allowed to keep than the people who actually earn it or pass the money they earned on to their children, IMO.

You cound not be more right and it is amazing how many people don’t get it. Taxing inheritance is despicable and should be criminal. Taxes were paid on those items when they were aquired and now they are taxed again before the next of kin can have what is left of them? Disgusting. And who said that this was only going to benefit the rich? The people hardest hit by this extortion are families of farmers who can not afford to keep the farm when the owner dies. And the Democrats who fight to keep this practice (like the Hero of Chapaquiddick) have all of their assets protected by trusts so they can dodge this same tax. The epitome of corruption.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

2shelbys:

You cound not be more right and it is amazing how many people don’t get it. Taxing inheritance is despicable and should be criminal. Taxes were paid on those items when they were aquired and now they are taxed again before the next of kin can have what is left of them? Disgusting. And who said that this was only going to benefit the rich? The people hardest hit by this extortion are families of farmers who can not afford to keep the farm when the owner dies. And the Democrats who fight to keep this practice (like the Hero of Chapaquiddick) have all of their assets protected by trusts so they can dodge this same tax. The epitome of corruption.

2Shelbys:

What most people don’t know is that the whole inheritance tax system (including the amounts exempt from taxation and the Inheretence Tax Marginal Rates) hadn’t changed since the Administration of TR, when $2.8 Mill. was actually a furtune and something only rich people could have passed on.

Cars cost under $1,000, Homes in Los angeles County (where they are now over $500,00 - &1 mil) cost $7,500. In that environment, $2.8 Mil was a fortune. Nowadays, $2.8 mil is the Prudent savings of an Upper Middle Class Family.

I agree that shouldn’t be taxed.

I do not agree that the inheritance tax itself is intrinsically immoral. It’s just that it was in the form that existed pre-2001.

I would have no objection if the Democrats would agree to an inheritance Tax that just taxed the top 1% of taxpayers, which would mean that it would have to leave the first $25 mil. in NET VALUE of the extate untouched. That would allow small business owners and those who owned 2 homes and a few stocks and bonds to pass them on to their chldren, taxing the Kennedies and the very rich scions who’ve made it so the only work they have to do is running for Congress and then running our country into the ground.

This would serve to simplify inheritance planning and take the tax worries out of inheritance planning for most taxpayers. I believe this adopting this could have made the Inheritance tax more fair, while restoring it to its original intent.

I wonder why the Democrats haven’t taken up the issue of a wrinkle in a Tax System that I believe is manifestly unfair. It turns out, that because of the way Social Security is collected, the top .5% in Income pay a lower rate in total taxes than the next 5% of US Income Earners.

I would like to know if the Democrats have any Proposals to deal with that injustice, or if they were just planning to demagogue “Tax Cuts for the Wealthy” while doing nothing to make the US Tax code simpler or more fair?

I’ve discussed these in letters to Democratic politicians. So far, all I’ve received in reply has been the bit about “Tax Cuts for the Wealthy”. Not one has discussed the merits of my proposals or the need t make the tax system sympler.

Name calling, Obstructionism and Lying about your opponents do not form a vision for this country or tell us where you believe America should go and how you want it to get there.

This country needs a Democrati Party that has a vision that includes something else beside funding social programs that don’t work, fighting to preserve the right of women to slaughter to their babies and criticizing any attempts by the present Administraion to defend our country or to free peoples from tyranny.

We need the Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman and John Kennedy, not the party of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore.

In Christ, Michael