Three Cheers for Harry

The familiar hallmark of Republican politics is what I call "roll-call slander." The party of Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, pioneered the use of ridiculous legislative roll calls to put incumbent Democrats on the spot--recorded votes that can be used against them in the next election. The purpose is not to enact legislation but to generate demagogic fodder for Republican challengers.

Did you know your senator voted in favor of burning the American flag? Well, he did. Here is the Senate roll-call to prove it. Elect me and I promise to stand by our flag.

Sometimes, this works or makes Dems scurry for cover. More often, it simply revs up the GOP troops, like waving a piece of bloody meat before a pack of hungry dogs. The technique turns representative democracy into a cheap cartoon.

This week in the Senate, the Republican strategists reached a new nadir of cynicism with their proposal to raise the minimum wage for the working poor in the same bill that slashes the estate tax for billionaires.

How cute is that? Republicans loathe the minimum wage, of course, but they figured this could sucker a handful of wobbly Democrats into going along with them on gutting the estate tax. Or else face the wrath of their constituents. The GOP tricksters failed by four votes.

I say, hurrah for Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader. Democrats hung together and blocked this ugly maneuver-–a rare moment of solidarity when some of them were seriously tempted to defect. Republicans might try again in the fall, but they are running out of gimmicks.

The GOP is fearful this fall's elections will seriously weaken its House and Senate majorities, so this might be their last chance to crumple the estate tax. The party has collected hundreds of millions in contributions from the small number of very, very rich families obsessed with repeal. A handful of Dems wanted to vote for them too. They will probably be targeted in the fall campaign but with this twist: Did you know your senator voted against poor people?

The cloakroom politics surrounding this issue was intense, but minority leader Reid was the stand-up guy. We don't know what he said privately. Presumably, nobody's arm was broken. But Harry Reid kept the wannabe stray cats in line. How refreshing. A party leader who stands and fights, who warns wayward colleagues they better not sell out.

Comments (105)

1. Over on the Hagel thread, I voiced some simpilar concerns regarding the Republicans. While the usual appologists love the chant that 'everybody has done it' it's really the current Republicans who have elevated the use of dirty tricks to a high art form for the pupose of politically slandering their opponents.

   Unfortunately, I am very skeptical about this...

   "Republicans might try again in the fall, but they are running out of gimmicks. "

   Given what I've seen, I think the Republicans may actually have an unlimited supply of gimmicks (or maybe an unlimited ability to recycle them over and over) that they can continue to work on a large slice of American voters.

   Posted by Lillian at 08/04/2006 @ 5:22pm

2. I will add, my support to the title of this article. Whole-heartedly!!

   The Cheers for Harry!!!!!

   For killing the whole minimum wage increase, because he didnt want the rich to get a tax break, what a man of principle.

   Posted by CPT at 08/04/2006 @ 5:31pm

3. "Tricksters" deserve more credit! Let's just say the GOP operatives lost by 4 votes. The defeat of this obscene bill is a step in the right direction in terms of addressing the growing chasm between the rich and poor in the United States. Now let's get a proper increase in the minimum wage, because the people/citizens/voters need it.

   Posted by prairdog at 08/04/2006 @ 5:39pm

4. What is amazing is that while all Republicans voted en-blcok to support the bill, there were a few Democrats voting for the bill as well. If Democrats don't unite it does not bode well for October.

   Posted by GP at 08/04/2006 @ 5:43pm

5. Posted by CPT 08/04/2006 @ 5:31pm

   Three Cheers for Harry!!!!!

   For killing the whole minimum wage increase, because he didnt want the rich to get a tax break, what a man of principle.

   Three Cheers for Cpt !!!

   For seeing through the Democrat's evil machinations, as they maneuvered themselves into voting down a raise in the minimum wage, what an asture political analyst Cpt is.

   Meanwhile back here on earth, unlike Lillian, I see this as pure desperation and a last ditch effort to salvage something before this Congress becomes just another foot note to history. Over the last two years these jerks pulled out all the stops and managed, with the help of folks like Lieberman, to get two radical Supreme Court Justices confirmed but didn't have enough steam left to push through either drilling in ANWR or the Paris Hilton tax cut despite trying every parliamentary trick in the book and despite having a monopoly on all branches of government. From their perspective that's a pretty lackluster achievement.

   If they loose either the House or the Senate in November we may be looking back on these defeats someday as the end an era ! Or at least the beginning of a transition.

   Unfortunately I'm afraid it's the damage already done by the willful expansion of Executive powers which will prove to be much more extensive. That and the radicalization of the Supreme Court.

   Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/04/2006 @ 8:40pm

6. Still don't underestimate this accomplishment. It's pivotal. And, if anything, as a cynical ploy it may well end up backfiring on Repubs in November.

   Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/04/2006 @ 8:45pm

7. Rio

   Either provide some evidence that raising the minimum wage "robs...the poor of job availability" or quit bringing up that stupid red herring. Facts are more pesuasive than your rhetoric. God if anything that five and a half years of this Administration has taught us it's the emptiness of this constant barrage of meaningless ideological rhetoric !

   Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/04/2006 @ 8:53pm

8. Again...Fall comes and the Republican says..."I TRIED to get you a Min Wage hike, but the Dems wouldn't support it!"

   and the Dem is forced to do a 3000 dissertation on deficit spending and trying to talk about "Paris Hilton"....

   to a voter who's asking "Where's my pay raise and why did you Democrats oppose it?!?!?!?"

   And somewhere in his lair...Karl Rove smiles!

   Posted by Mask at 08/04/2006 @ 10:28pm

9. i'd be more worried about fall coming and iraq in civil war

   the republicans who are crying about their minimum wage bill...

   will be voted out

   Posted by Will C. at 08/04/2006 @ 11:59pm

10. Taxation in this country has become, like most issues, just a partisan tool for grabbing power instead of something to be wisely crafted for the benefit of our nation.

    We no longer have statesmen and women in our congress - we have greedy, power hungry scum.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/05/2006 @ 08:04am

11. Taxation in this country has become, like most issues, just a partisan tool for grabbing power instead of something to be wisely crafted for the benefit of our nation.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/05/2006 @ 08:04am | ignore this person

    You know what's incredibily ironic, ILP...

    That sounds EXACTLY like a conservative...in the 1970s!

    Posted by Mask at 08/05/2006 @ 10:49am

12. If you are so sure I'm wrong prove unemployment, inflation, prices of goods and services, and the overall poverty rate does not increase in the years immediately following minimum wage increases. Also prove the number of new business "start ups" and failures does not increase! Guess you haven't tried to find a job after one of several min. wage increases before?

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/05/2006 @ 02:12am

    Excellent counterpoint! Yes, at all times when challenged to back up one's claim, one must put the burden of proof on the person who asked for it.

    Rio,

    It goes without saying, yet I'll say it because I've been disconnected from the internet since lightning took out my network card (God told me it was because reading the ramblings from the likes of you was damaging my soul), you're a fool. I assume you are guessing at the connection between the minimum wage and any other economic indicator, because if you looked at any such numbers you would find no indication. Hasn't happened. Ever.

    So we await your next pathetic comeback--perhaps "I know you are, but what am I?" is next on your list of Debating Points Stolen from a Third-Grader--in lieu of facts to back your view that poor people are necessary to allow the rest of us the comfort we deserve.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/05/2006 @ 11:41am

13. You want the proof, Rio? The lowest unemployment rate since WWII was in 1969, a mere one year after the minimum wage was increased. The unemployment rate immediately began to drop in the late 1990's after the minimum wage increase, dropping under 5% for the first time in decades.

    CPT, obviously you have no respect for the people of this country, because if you expect them to believe that cutting taxes by $750 billion, thus cutting such programs as education, esp. when the states get less funding, you have proven your cynicism. Zach Wamp proved how principled the GOP really was when he said on the House floor that Dems were upset "because we outfoxed you." Yeah, the GOP really does care for working people, just as long as their name is Paris Hilton.

    Posted by steve4wv at 08/05/2006 @ 1:12pm

14. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/05/2006 @ 02:12am |

    "If you are so sure I'm wrong prove unemployment, inflation, prices of goods and services, and the overall poverty rate does not increase in the years immediately following minimum wage increases. Also prove the number of new business "start ups" and failures does not increase! Guess you haven't tried to find a job after one of several min. wage increases before?"

    Rio

    This is your contention Rio. I'm not sure why I need to write a disertation proving your b.s. wrong. It's up to you to establish the link when you make statements like the above. But here's a few points to start you off should you decide to research these issues:

    As regards the overall poverty rate going up poverty in this country has gone up every single year since the decider has been in office and there has been no increase in the min wage in all that time. Were's the link ?

    As regards the supposed link between unemployment and min wage increases there were sixteen ( 16 ) years in which we've seen increases in the minimum wage in the fifty years since 1956. One would expect that if there were no linkage the unemployment rate would have gone up 8 times and down 8 times in the year following each raise. In fact that is about what happened. Actually the unemployment rate fell nine times and went up only seven times but this could probably be considered as statistically negligible.

    As to the supposed link between inflation and min wage increase you'll do better to study the influence of monetary as opposed to fiscal policy on inflation. After all the purpose of a min wage increase is to compensate for inflation it's meaningless to look for a further correlation. But take a look at the years this country has been at war i.e. WWI and II, Korea and Vietnam while you're at it. It's sort of interesting that all the inflation in that half century occured during the war years. That's how we pay for wars i.e. a little by taxes but mostly through inflation. We're waiting till the bill for the Bush years comes due.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/05/2006 @ 1:52pm

15. Posted by CPT 08/04/2006 @ 5:31pm For killing the whole minimum wage increase, because he didnt want the rich to get a tax break, what a man of principle.

    For killing a deliberately sabotaged minimum wage increase, which would deliver a wage decrease to some, because he didn't want the rich to get yet another entirely undeserved tax break.

    The "Bush economy" delivers all the pay rises to the rich, and so the "Bush economic policy" is principally focused on seeing that as little as possible of the taxation necessary to defend their wealth comes from the beneficiaries.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/05/2006 @ 2:17pm

16. oh, thank god! i'm going to get drunk and high right now, and then fuck all night....

    sweet victory!!

    Posted by darladoon at 08/05/2006 @ 6:23pm

17. darla,,

    Ah, where are you.?,ah, exactly..., ah, I have some fine wines, ah, if you like, ah,probably find some smoke,..ah....

    :)..See

    I read all posts not ignored.. :)

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2006 @ 6:51pm

18. Katrina Vanden Heuvel, I understand she has alot of money and works very hard. Conservatives here have said that Katrina Vanden Heuvel is rich and hard wroking, she's the Editor of The Nation. As I understand from what the Conservatives here have told me, she has alot of expensive french food, french clothes, french champagne, all kind of luxuries from France - because she works so hard she can afford them - thats what rich people do. Assuming she is as rich and hard working as Conservatives up here on the message boards say she is, I wonder why she is more deserving of a tax cut than the Conservatives here. Obviously she works harder than the Conservatives here do, but maybe its all the French luxury goods she consumes that makes her worthy of a big tax break?

    Not one Conservative here will admit to being a self-made hard working millionaire. I know, I know, you would think that every single Conservative here arguing for hard working rich folk to get a tax cut, would be hard working rich themself. However, there are no Conservatives here who ever felt like working hard and getting rich, how sad. Now if I am wrong, please tell us what field of work - no names or addresses - just what field of work did you work hard in, start from nothing, work hard - and get rich like Katrina Vanden Heuvel.

    Tell you the truth, I dont believe it, because rich people dont do nothing. Rich people are lazy, aloof from society, the good ones end up giving away the money, which makes them no longer rich. People who stay rich just consume more luxury goods - daydreaming, they arent out there inventing anything. Rich people produce nothing, they cant do anything Stalin couldnt have done, and they brag about creating all these jobs. It is Government, Government, that makes business do anything good. Business without government telling it what to do is no better than Communism.

    Conservatives are for letting business run the whole world, chiefly the weapons business, chiefly the business of making money killing people. Conservatives thought they were for small government, turns out they are for the biggest government of all - now they want to get rid of the Constitution! But Conservative big government has only 1 agenda - to make more money for those already terribly rich and lazy! Government should not do anything but help the really rich lazy folks - according to Conservatives! Chiefly the weapons business! The weapons business trade above all else to the Conservatives - the Military Industrial Complex has devoured the innocent sheep, who wanted to call themselves Conservatives! Conservatives are lost in these technical ideals about a Republic vs. a Democracy and they fail to see the Republic vs. and Empire.

    Posted by conshame at 08/05/2006 @ 6:58pm

19. I think the dems killing the bill was a great set up by the repubs...

    that being against a hand full of people keeping their own money for their kids, that they earned, saved, invested, paid tax on,(even though there isn't a dollar in the nation most here don't want taxed at some level),and now want their family to enjoy after they die...these few people who want to keep their own property from greedy government bastards... all this is more important than the "millions and millions" of dems constituents, who needed the ever important raise in min wage...all thses desperate people, to nite are rejoicing the loss of an extra $ 2.00 they may have received with this bill...so some guy they don't know or care about or maybe even strive to become...won't get spared the tax man after they are DEAD,..these guys are giving 3 cheers to Harry?

    WOW..I wouldn't think so, but...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2006 @ 7:00pm

20. Con,

    "Not one Conservative here will admit to being a self-made hard working millionaire'..

    No, most are not willing to share with you their secret or efforts they made to arrive at millionare status, be it by design or as a by product of hard work,as you are not qualified and do not deserve to be told something , that by asking that kind of question,you demonstrate an inability to comprehend anything about anyone growing their nest egg....and I would expect millionares are split between dems and repubs.

    Get a book ,"The millionare Next Door" and read it some night and you will learn that less than 13% inherit their money and most milliolnares fit a profile that will ASTOUND you, as it is probably a guy on your block....whom you least suspected..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2006 @ 7:08pm

21. I, for one, feel if KVH wants to drink $ 10,000 a bottle of wine while eating $ 3,000 a pound cheese, in her $5,000,000 house(one of many) after parking her $ 250,000 car..good for her and have another one for me.

    It is her money, and if she is as smart as I believe she is, then she has wisely kept it away from the stcicky liitle fingers of the tax man and the fucks here, good for her...plus..she is HOT to boot.......

    I for one suppor5t her freedom to enjoy the fruits of her fsamilys and HER labors anyweay she wants..vivila your fun........

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2006 @ 7:13pm

22. C on,

    After reading your last post,,I gotta ask, you do get out and read, don't you? I mean newspapers, books, talk to people in your neighborhood...get around, just a little? Because your views of rich people, or anyone for that matter, is a little, ah, deranged and weird...you are one strange bird...you might need a vacation or some serious time behind a bong...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2006 @ 7:19pm

23. Maash

    "..'a hand full of people keeping their own money for their kids, that they earned, saved, invested, paid tax on...and now want their family to enjoy after they die."

    John Mash, champion of the elite, constantly primed to do battle against the insidious, creeping tide of egalitarianism and to defend our embattled monied gentry and hereditary aristocracy. By the way, I'm curious as to what you think of Warren Buffet's idea of choosing the gold medal recipients of the 2026 olympics right now from the children of the winners of the last olympics ?

    John, I somehow have this mental image of you as bearing a closer resemblance to P. G. Wodehouse's Jeeves than to his Bertie Wooster. You're on the wrong side of the class struggle John. Come on over to our side. The Rockefellers, the Vanderbuilts, the Westinhouses, the Hiltons don't need your help. That's what they pay their minions for.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/06/2006 @ 09:51am

24. Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/06/2006 @ 09:51am | ignore this person

    RED, I think your "analogy" (or Buffet's) about "children of Olympic athletes being named the winners of the 2026 Olympics"...

    sorta disputes the point it's trying to make. Since, there's little if nothing preventing ANYBODY else from running in the race against the "Olympic children"...and beating them.

    My son will have an EQUAL chance to beat the son of Liu Xiang's son in the 110 meter hurdles and, in reverse, Liu Xiang's son has NO significant advantage over my son.

    I think better analogies can be come up with, but THAT one actually makes MAASCH's point!

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2006 @ 10:00am

25. Red,

    This has got to be you worstpost ever.

    My point remains...

    What do I think about Warrens gift? wonderfull, an example for all of us, and living in Nebraska, I can tell you we are all proud of him...having said that, I will return the the main issue I posted above...

    1. Warren gave the money as a GIFT.. of his own free will and choice...CHOICE,..no government hack in a cheap suit will show up at the grave site looking for his cut..in fact the govenment getZero in this scheme...had the bill been pased last week the government would get Zero again..as you like it now, the governent hack in the cheap suit gets a bulking share for being, ah, government..BTW, you should be aware that Warrens children, grandchildren and great grand children all have trusts set aside for multi millions...is this OK with you?

    on the same note , I would be completely finewith him pushing all his cash in a pit and burning it...IT IS HIS AND HE EARNED IT AND HE MADE IT..IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR ME..NOR SHOULD IT.

    2."You're on the wrong side of the class struggle "....

    Class sturggle comrade..there is no class struggle..there are people doing their bidding according to their abilitys in their pursuit of happiness...class struggle...that horse shit explains it all..you are on the wrong continent and in the wrong century...Tell you what, take that line and run a nation campaign with all your progressive statements and desires youwill be handed your ass at the polls and be sent back to the school to learn about classes,,,class struggle., hell, even the Russians and Chinese don't go there any more..only the Cubans,,you better hurry tho, Cuba is about to become a real play agin after 60 years and their people will have a chance at a modern life with food and toilet paper agin, maybe even electicity all day...class struggle...shit.....and if you are good, and we can get it started, maybe you can get a ride in the peoples truck later...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 10:20am

26. Maash

    Guess my point about Buffet's ironic remark went over your head. I didn't ask you what you thought of Warren's gift. I asked you about his remark that we don't choose olympians based on whose "womb they came out of" ( an expresion he has also used elsewhere ). The implication is quite simple i.e. neither should we choose who gets to monopolize wealth in this country based on the same criteria. It should quite simply be based on merit, an idea we still pay lip service to but no longer lend much credence to in practice.

    Your vitrolic and somewhat incoherent rambling at the very words "class struggle" is what really interested me however. I must admit I love to bring the expression up once in a while just to "epater le bourgeois" as it were. You should ask yourself why does the idea scare you so bad John ? Is it because the last time we had this great a discrepancy in our country between the haves and the have nots was just before the crash of '29 ?

    That's simply a fact. If you don't want to recognize that fact that's your prerogative I suppose but frothing and ranting against it neither refutes the fact nor obviates the problem.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/06/2006 @ 11:22am

27. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 10:20am 2."You're on the wrong side of the class struggle "....

    Class sturggle comrade..there is no class struggle..there are people doing their bidding according to their abilitys in their pursuit of happiness...

    No, John is right. There is no class war in this country. The Republicans take from the middle and lower classes on behalf of the rich, and at the present point in time the lower and middle classes are not fighting back.

    You need two sides fighting to have a "war" or a "struggle".

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/06/2006 @ 12:21pm

28. Red, I just reacted to the "class struggle comment", as would anyone who has an understanding of failed systems in promoting that "struggle'.....archaic(sp) term...and, I don't think the spread between the have nots and haves has been "increasing" but what has changed is the definiton of have nots and haves...

    Not much in your posts goes over anybodys head here..it is not complicated and I am not attacking you or your intelligence. Just a fact.

    For me, I think the dems blew a chance to help those whom they claim are their home boys, namely, the underclass,and then they prevent them from getting more money, repsect, and whatever they have been harping that they now lack,,,only to stop some guys, a hand full, from keeping what is already theirs.. seems to have played into repubs hands.

    It is my opinion and I don't care if you like it or not, but can you see where it might have some validity?

    What do you think of Warrens gift verses government hacks at the grave site? Why do you think he didn't give it the government program of his choice? This is the real question..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 12:27pm

29. Bruce,

    The struggle is by those who have worked and have achieved some measure of succees, as they were taught in school would happen if they worked hard, only to see chumps come along and try to steal more money from those who earned it...even after they are dead!!! Right now 60% of what we earn is taxed or taken by various fees away without our choice.

    Dump all income stealing and tax consumtion with exemptions for anyone who earns under $ 50,000. The worker keeps ALL his check on payday...let them try this and all your progrssive sermons and propaganda will join communism on the ash heap..next to the class struggles hand book.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 12:32pm

30. ...then money of other people will not keep you awake at night.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 12:33pm

31. What do I think about Warrens gift? wonderfull, an example for all of us, and living in Nebraska, I can tell you we are all proud of him...having said that, I will return the the main issue I posted above...

    1. Warren gave the money as a GIFT.. of his own free will and choice...CHOICE,..no government hack in a cheap suit will show up at the grave site looking for his cut..in fact the govenment getZero in this scheme...had the bill been pased last week the government would get Zero again..as you like it now, the governent hack in the cheap suit gets a bulking share for being, ah, government..BTW, you should be aware that Warrens children, grandchildren and great grand children all have trusts set aside for multi millions...is this OK with you?

    on the same note , I would be completely finewith him pushing all his cash in a pit and burning it...IT IS HIS AND HE EARNED IT AND HE MADE IT..IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR ME..NOR SHOULD IT.

    Well, Maasch, Warren Buffet has been one of the leading opponents of estate tax repeal, along with Bill Gates, Sr. The reason they give was the effect on charities if the estate tax was repealed. Considering the size of the estates that are actually covered by the Paris Hilton Tax, I find it amusing that you are complaining about the government "taking someone's hard earned estate" even though the top marginal rate is somwhere around 50% once all of the deductions are taken into effect. But, let's just use 50% above $2 million just for the sake of roundness and no deductions other than that for the sake of simplicity. If someone has an estate of $100 million, that would mean $49 million would be taxed, and $51 million would be passed on. If the kids can't make do on $51 million, they wouldn't be able to make do on $100 million.

    Your defense of unearned income vs. earned income says it all, Maasch. You talk about hard work, but you want a tax policy that punishes work and rewards inheritance. That's why we liberals didn't fall for your ploy.

    Posted by steve4wv at 08/06/2006 @ 12:45pm

32. Federal income tax rates [taxes.yahoo.com]

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 1:12pm

33. Right now 60% of what we earn is taxed or taken by various fees away without our choice.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 12:32am

    60% maasch? Really? With no choice?

    Nebraska state income tax rates [tinyurl.com]

    Top tax rate… 6.84 %

    Federal income tax rates [taxes.yahoo.com]

    Top rate… 35 %

    Nebraska sales tax rates

    South Sioux City has increased its city sales tax rate to 1.5% effective on January 1, 2005. Sales made in South Sioux City are subject to the STATE sales tax rate of 5.5% and the CITY sales tax rate of 1.5%, for a total tax rate of 7.0%.

    Your worst case scenario for income taxes living in Nebraska is 41.84 %. But you own a business, (your choice) so with deductions you pay less than that.

    your worst case for income and sales taxes is 48.84 percent

    but let's look at the choice thing you whine about all the time

    You chose to live in a state with an income tax.

    You chose to live in a state with a sales tax

    Property taxes are based on your homes value. The home you bought was entirely your choice.

    Any fees associated with your business are consensual because you chose to be self employed.

    any gas taxes are consentual because you choose to have a POV and a highway system to support it's use

    And as far as your federal income taxes and state income taxes are concerned. You choose your representation that decides these matters

    Maasch you have all kinds of choices to include packing you bags and hitting the road when the carpet gets too soggy from all your tears

    Face it Maasch, you're a cheap skate, a sponger… and a greedy one at that.

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 1:38pm

34. Nothing like a few numbers to wake one up. "Over thirty-five years, the rise in wages and salaries in the wide middle of the income distribution was 11 percent. The rise in wages and salaries at the top of the income distribution was 617 percent." "Atlantic Monthly." Sept., '06. {Those 617 percenters (sports and media celebrities and top corporate executives, 13,000 people in all) had total earnings of $83 billion in 200l.} This must be the Republican version of trickle-down.

    Posted by felicity at 08/06/2006 @ 1:46pm

35. only to stop some guys, a hand full, from keeping what is already theirs..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 12:27am

    You realize that the "theirs" refers to dead people, right? Has this country's right to life bender gone so far as to include those whose lives have, at least medically, ended? Or are we having Frist do a case by case video confirmation of death before the will can be executed?

    When you admit to yourself--something I don't think you are capable of--that the money in question is that within an inheritance, i.e. income to the true "they" in question, taxation is a pretty simple matter. Funny how those on the right or who consider themselves libertarian love to think simplemindedly until large sums of cash enter the fray.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/06/2006 @ 2:08pm

36. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 12:32am: The struggle is by those who have worked and have achieved some measure of succees, as they were taught in school would happen if they worked hard, only to see chumps come along and try to steal more money from those who earned it...even after they are dead!!! Right now 60% of what we earn is taxed or taken by various fees away without our choice.

    On the other hand, those with the most are those who have gained the most from public infratructure and the common heritage of technology and knowledge.

    There is a superior solution to the estate tax, which would be a more sure guarantee against an aristocracy of inherited wealth while permitting people to have as no estate tax at all, if they are prepared to spread the wealth around.

    That is the Gift Tax ... proposed in the book "How Rich is Too Rich?", which is exactly about the issue of when wealth becomes self-perpetuating, so that the heir's position in life is determined by their choice of parents.

    In its simplest form: 0% on total gifts received, up to $1m 25% on total gifts received, $1m-$2m 50% on total gifts reveived, $2m-$3m 75% on total gifts received, $3m-$4m. 100% on total gifts received, $4m+

    That would be an effective strike against the gross violation of the ideals of freedom of opportunity represented by the nation's aristocracy of wealth.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/06/2006 @ 2:50pm

37. Nothing like a few numbers to wake one up. "Over thirty-five years, the rise in wages and salaries in the wide middle of the income distribution was 11 percent. The rise in wages and salaries at the top of the income distribution was 617 percent." "Atlantic Monthly." Sept., '06.

    Posted by FELICITY 08/06/2006 @ 1:46pm

    I agree Felicity.

    Here's a few more numbers. A while back I borrowed the economist Paul Samuleson's idea of graphically portraying this disparity. Samuelson had imagined a pyramid constructed of children's building blocks with each layer of blocks representing 1000 dollars worth of income. I did the same thing using wealth instead of income.

    Conclusion: using a block 1.5 inches on edge the average person has a wealth pyramid just over three and a half yards high with a base of just under thirteen square yds ( based on a 2001 Fed. survey of median net wealth of $ 86K ). Next taking the total wealth of the top ten people in the country as reported in Forbes 400 magazine in Sept. 2004 and dividing by ten to get a simple average you get $22.7 billion .

    Using the same 1.5 inch block and the $22.7 billion figure the "wealth pyramid" of each of them reached well out into outer space beyond the orbits of most satellites ( over 520 miles ) and had a base that covered an area greater than the state of Texas !

    Many of these people like the Waltons ( not John boy's family but the Walmart heirs ) had inherited their wealth under the existing tax system. If anyone out there can seriously argue that repealing the Estate tax is necessary because they deserve more I'd love to hear the rationale

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/06/2006 @ 8:17pm

38. Should read over 530 miles ( 537.4 to be exact )

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/06/2006 @ 8:22pm

39. Back outside to cut weeds between the monsoon storms. I'll be looking forward to your rationale later John.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/06/2006 @ 8:25pm

40. when one earns (or inherits) a sizeable amount of money or property, or other investments or assets---let's say over $10 million---they have entered a realm of social and cultural experience unknown to around 95% of the globe. they now have the opportunity to relate to new people, spread their influence, or just get totally rip roaring drunk and stoned. but the one thing that really changes once you enter this elite club is that you get to turn around and INVEST all over again. and i mean, REALLY INVEST. one honestly has a fairly decent chances of making A LOT MORE MONEY. and perhaps joining the $100 million and up club. and from there, the $1 billion club and up.

    at this point, you're in the stratosphere. you are so filthy rich that you're concerns exceed the level of almost every single human being on earth. in fact, you're not even human. you can buy a new face, a small island, a trophy wife. you can do drugs that have no side effects. you can travel to the moon or mars.

    where am i getting at with this? well, the people with $1 billion and up are the ONLY people effected by the so-called 'death tax'. i'm fucking serious, maasch, you friggin' nut case, these are the ONLY FUCKING PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WHO BENEFIT FROM THE REPEAL OF THIS TAX. those who would inherit property from these people WILL LIVE JUST FINE after their family members' deaths. and i'm talking JUST FINE. in fact, nothing with change at all. they will always be filthy rich. the estate tax is NOTHING compared to the these people's overall wealth and power.

    the only reason frist, and these other evil assholes, support the repeal is because THEY GET ENORMOUS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE O.5% OF INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPORT IT.

    who knows, they probably also get their cocks sucked as well.....

    though it looks like frist doesn't get much of that....and even if he did, it probably wouldn't be very good, seeing as he lives in the south...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/06/2006 @ 8:49pm

41. steve,

    You can quote all the % you want, buit YOUR ploy won't wash here with me...and it is very simple. It is their money..to me it doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks "they" should get by on 50 cents or $ 50 million. It is not your money and your opinions are valiod but have no weight on someone else property. You can make all justifacations why you should take 1/2. 1/3. or whatever, but I will never see it that way. It is not yours and you should not have any right to it or to what they want to do with it.

    I am aware of Warrens postition...and Gates, my friend is lead attorney for the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation,..saw here last weekend,...and privately, she meets with Gates and Warren constantly, especially now since Bill is retiring....do not misunderstand their positions they are taking and by reading here it is obvious that many do regarding the estate tax repeals..notice they are NOT letting the tax man have any of their money.....that is all I will devulge here on thre peoples blog.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 9:22pm

42. Will,

    Nice try with all the charts and percentages...

    try this,... add up what you gross, then start taking away all of the fees, car tabs, property taxes, sales taxes, bike liceinse, gas tax , exise tax death tax, cost of corporate tax past on to customers,service tax on construction, parking tickets and most speeding tickets have long ago ceased to be about safety, car tags dog and cat fees, taxes on tires,..and really stop and think for a while, look around...you are paying more than you think..and while you make think it is ok, and thats fine, many of us think it is a hidden tax system and is a way of getting more money from the citizen without him really noticing especially the poor,..kinda like socialism creep..a little each year and before you know it,...

    anyway, when you are done adding up all the fees(cell phone taxes 28%) before 1 call is made, is an example, THEN from what you have left..subtract all the obvious taxes you so diligently posted..so, maybe I am off, but I'll bet it is over 40% disappearing from your monly money, that maybe you could find a better use for than where it is going now...

    Ever notice you pay a court cost, even when you do not go to court and just pay the fine so as to not waste any time in government lines?

    Now many of us have figured a way around all this or a good portion, but the governemnt regulators create criminals every day out of ordinary people..I can't think of many programs that would help thre por. under class , min wage ,ect people, as well as middle and any class you want, than to let them keep 100% of their paycheck and work out a consumption tax with certain exmptions..do this and the progressives, libs and conservatives still have money to fight over and all thsoe ineffective, overbloated, and unproductive prograns are still funded..and the average guys is left alone..

    If the average man or woman had to write out a check every pay period for what is taken automatically from them now...you would see a massive fireing from government and am rebellion of 1100s all over again. Why do you think income tax is taken out BEFORE the workers gets paid? Wasn't this supposed to be a temporary thing? Was government in part set up top protect private propery from government?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 9:40pm

43. Face it will, you are no beter than a thief who wants someelse money..only you feel opk about because you uthis making it legal makes it right...it doesn't and you steal just much as the guy who came into your house and he is just illegal..we haven't even touched on the moral issues..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 9:42pm

44. Will,

    You like charts and links and stats that you seem to live by...

    "The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%"...thats just the top 1%The top 5% pays 51.4%....

    IRS web site..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 9:48pm

45. TJ,

    themselves libertarian love to think simplemindedly until large sums of cash enter the fray.

    No, for those who are libertarian in their beliefs it is simple...the property belongs to the owners or their intented familys..not the government or their surrogates...in any form .."all here for the common good"..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 9:51pm

46. Darla,

    You and all here are fixed on the number or the small number of people affected by the estate tax...

    I am focused on the principle of taxing dead people instead of letting them give it to their familys.

    Yeah, the Waltons inherited some serious dollars, but didn't they WORK there to?

    Principle...it is not the governments..I don't care if the tax only affects ONE person...it is the priciple.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 9:57pm

47. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:40pm: If the average man or woman had to write out a check every pay period for what is taken automatically from them now...you would see a massive fireing from government and am rebellion of 1100s all over again.

    Mr. Maasch, this thread is about the estate tax. You do realize, I assume, that the average man or woman would write a check totalling zero for their share of the estate tax. Please explain why you believe the average man or woman would be moved to rebellion over the estate tax.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 9:59pm

48. Let me try to clean this past post uip

    sorry for fast poor typing and spelling... Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:42pm | ignore this person :

    should read..

    "Face it Will, you are no better than a thief who wants some one elses money..only you feel ok because you you think making it legal makes it right.....it doesn't and you steal just as the guy who came into your house univited, for invite him in once is ok, when he comes back and demands more or he will take your house if you don't comply, then he is a theif..we haven't even touched on the moral issues..

    Gone to get a steak here in LA. Later.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 10:05pm

49. OR,

    "why you believe the average man or woman would be moved to rebellion over the estate tax.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 " Not estate tax..this has no bearing on him or his income... but it does have an impact on him as a citzen...the taking of his property from his family against his wishes..in principle..I am not argueing about the money, it is the taking..

    The average guy does not realize just how much is taken from him everyday..if he had to pay all these taxes as if they were monthly bills, he would rebel..the estate tax just brings in the focus to a point where even when you die some fucker is after your stuff....before your family can take it home, so to speak...you are not even cold and banks lock up safety deposit boxes......doesn't this bother anyone? ..

    This is my point. I notice no one here can see my point, so, Ok..so,I am off to eat.. bye

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 10:11pm

50. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 10:11pm: but it does have an impact on him as a citzen...the taking of his property from his family against his wishes..in principle..I am not argueing about the money, it is the taking..

    So, the Maasch view is that, on principle, the government should not collect taxes, because that is the taking of a person's property.

    How then, do you intend for the government to pay for our glorious war machine, which you so triumphantly ejaculate over in your frequent drunken stupors (when not flirting with Darla or commenting on KVH's hotness)?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 10:27pm

51. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 10:05pm: and you steal just as the guy who came into your house univited, for invite him in once is ok, when he comes back and demands more or he will take your house if you don't comply, then he is a theif..

    Let me see if I understand...

    Government taxation is the equivalent of theft. The Federal government is therefore a thief (or perhaps, a theif).

    Now, the head of the Federal government is... Dear Leader. You are therefore calling Dear Leader a thief. Not just a petty thief, mind you, but the head of an enormous criminal enterprise that steals from almost all Americans.

    I don't think Dear Leader likes being called a thief (or even, a theif). You are clearly a leftist socialist anti-american terrorist sympathizer, who is so blinded by hatred of Dear Leader that you can not even see what an ass you are.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 10:34pm

52. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:40pm

    Will,

    Nice try with all the charts and percentages...

    The charts and percentages don't add up to sixty percent of your income taken from you and you had no choice.

    try this,... add up what you gross, then start taking away all of the fees,

    car tabs,

    You chose to own a car

    property taxes,

    You chose to own a house

    sales taxes,

    You chose to buy retail

    bike liceinse,

    You chose to own a bike

    gas tax

    You chose to own a car,

    exise tax death tax,

    You don't make enough

    cost of corporate tax past on to customers,

    You chose to buy retail

    service tax on construction,

    You chose to build

    parking tickets

    You chose to break the law

    and most speeding tickets have long ago ceased to be about safety,

    Forty thousand plus dieing on our highways each year... it's all about safety

    car tags dog and cat fees

    You chose to own a dog and a cat

    taxes on tires

    You chose to own a car

    ,..and really stop and think for a while, look around...you are paying more than you think.

    I'm paying exactly what I pay.

    and while you make think it is ok,and thats fine,

    Yup... you want it, you pay for it

    many of us think it is a hidden tax system and is a way of getting more money from the citizen without him really noticing especially the poor,..kinda like socialism creep..a little each year and before you know it,...

    It's all right there on the bill maasch

    Is your brain not there when you hand the money to the nice cashier?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 11:27pm

53. Face it will, you are no beter than a thief who wants someelse money..only you feel opk about because you uthis making it legal makes it right...it doesn't and you steal just much as the guy who came into your house and he is just illegal..we haven't even touched on the moral issues..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:42pm

    Liberal democracy is gods' mechanism of freedom and liberty on this good earth.

    and the children of god have decided...

    The legislature has the power to levy taxes

    You have the right to vote for your representation in the legislature

    If you don't like the way we have things set up here you have two choices.

    1. Amend our constitution so that the legislature doesn't have the power to levy taxes

    2. Leave

    And we'd like you to decide soon

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 11:37pm

54. You like charts and links and stats that you seem to live by...

    "The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%"...thats just the top 1%The top 5% pays 51.4%....

    IRS web site..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:48pm

    he who makes all the money

    pays all the taxes

    and with all the loopholes, deductons, shelters, hideaways, off shore accounts...

    imagine how much money the top one percent is really sucking in so that after all is said and done... they still pay 34.27% of all the taxes

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 11:41pm

55. Posted by WILL C. 08/06/2006 @ 11:37pm

    He can't actually amend our constitution. Not by himself anyway.

    So, I guess he's left with the second option.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 11:43pm

56. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/06/2006 @ 11:43pm

    it too bad that we have to live with the whining until he makes the move

    have you ever met a guy that crys about having to pay the bill as much as maasch does?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 11:47pm

57. Posted by WILL C. 08/06/2006 @ 11:47pm

    I've been confused about his seemed flirting with Darla.

    He now appears to have flown to LA, perhaps to meet her?

    Isn't Maasch married? And a strong proponent of family values?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 11:51pm

58. or,

    "So, the Maasch view is that, on principle, the government should not collect taxes, because that is the taking of a person's property. "

    Have you never read one of my posts? Apparently not,,,as I am for taxes, just not the current model..I prefer consumption and not income of any kind.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2006 @ 11:53pm

59. And I get this disgusting image whenever he refers to KVH as "hot".

    It would, however, explain his many typos, what with the one handed typing and all.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 11:53pm

60. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 11:53pm:

    John, back from your steak? Did you enjoy it?

    I prefer consumption and not income of any kind.

    So, why isn't the government taking my property via a consumption tax also no better than a thief who comes into my house and steals from me?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/06/2006 @ 11:55pm

61. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/06/2006 @ 11:51pm

    Do you think he'll bitch about tax on the ticket price?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2006 @ 11:56pm

62. Have you never read one of my posts? Apparently not,,,as I am for taxes, just not the current model..I prefer consumption and not income of any kind.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 11:53pm

    what's hilarious about this post is how it contradicts this post

    you are paying more than you think..and while you make think it is ok, and thats fine, many of us think it is a hidden tax system and is a way of getting more money from the citizen without him really noticing especially the poor,..kinda like socialism creep..a little each year and before you know it,.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:40pm

    Income taxes are the most open and honest form of taxation. You get one statement at the end of each year that tells you exactly how much tax you paid.

    With a consumption tax you have to save every receipt, hope that there's ink in the printer of the register so you can read it, save then all, add them up and then keep that total in your files for future reference.

    It's too bad that people aren't going to do that.

    This makes a consumption tax the easiest of all taxes to slip in changes without the citizens noticing

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 12:07am

63. Will,

    Actually, all your choies in your simplistic post left out one important choice,,yes, I did and do choose my representative for government, no matter that the choices are between blood suckers of your ilk and the leeches of the other...I did NOT chosse to have them take away over 40% of my income..and I do not let them and will never let the likes of you and yours do it to me either. The reason our tax code weughs 80 lbs is because all the loop and hoopla one has to jump through to protect ones property from guys that believe as you ..

    so I have a third option..or a 4th

    as you sum up

    1. amend--no taxing is OK, just not your model..

    2. leave.. I could but I like it here and I pay for alot of things you want..

    3. Avoid all the taxes by working smarter than you and your sticky fingers..don't worry Will, you don't even come close to my money..I am used to beating guys like you out of my hard earned fruits..I deal with some really tough and sharp negoitaters...you are too easy to defeat. but hey, keep handing out those $5.00 bills at the exit ramps and think you are doing something valueable and real....

    4. Never die?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 12:08am

64. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:08am

    Actually, all your choies in your simplistic post left out one important choice,,yes, I did and do choose my representative for government, no matter that the choices are between blood suckers of your ilk and the leeches of the other...I did NOT chosse to have them take away over 40% of my income..

    Yes you did. Government of the people derives its power from the consent of the people. Whether you like it or not, you simple maintaining your citizenship (a choice), living here (a choice) and participating in our economy (a choice) is your consent

    and I do not let them and will never let the likes of you and yours do it to me either.

    Dipshit, if you whine in another post that they are taking away 60 percent of your income, then you did let them

    or you were lying

    he reason our tax code weughs 80 lbs is because all the loop and hoopla one has to jump through to protect ones property from guys that believe as you ..

    Yup… and it would be real easy to throw all those loopholes in the trash. I could right a tax code on one sheet of paper. We might even be able to lower taxes within the progressive tax structure because now all the little cheap skates who skipping out on the bill...

    will be paying their share

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 12:20am

65. Will,

    You are a constant source of hilarity to me and my friends...

    I am glad to recipricate.

    Or,

    Read the book, THE FAIR TAX BOOK, and my posts, and you can avoid your stupid questions about me and my veiws on taxes.

    GOOD NIGHT

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 12:25am

66. "Income taxes are the most open and honest form of taxation. "..

    According to you only...not one tax pro that I have heard or read.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 12:28am

67. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:08am

    1. amend--no taxing is OK, just not your model..

    "My model" was laid out by the people of the United States of America in the 16th amendment. You still have to amend idiot.

    2. leave.. I could but I like it here and I pay for alot of things you want..

    Then you are going to pay your taxes

    and I'm not exactly sure what I want... in Nebraska

    3. Avoid all the taxes by working smarter than you and your sticky fingers..don't worry Will, you don't even come close to my money..I am used to beating guys like you out of my hard earned fruits..I deal with some really tough and sharp negoitaters...you are too easy to defeat. but hey, keep handing out those $5.00 bills at the exit ramps and think you are doing something valueable and real....

    Apparently you suck at the thing you just claimed to be good at because earlier you claimed I was taking 60% of your income. But what ever is legal you can do maasch. I'm not going to sweat it

    Just remember though if you are using the loopholes to pay less tax, then you are not paying for things that I want

    are you?

    :)

    4. Never die?

    Death is transitory. If I were you I'd be more worried about the hell you are creating...

    that you will most assuredly be born again into

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 12:33am

68. Will,

    You are a constant source of hilarity to me and my friends...

    I am glad to recipricate.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:25am

    that's good john. I like to spread good chear

    but if you realy want to recipricate

    explain the contradiction

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 12:35am

69. Read the book, THE FAIR TAX BOOK, and my posts, and you can avoid your stupid questions about me and my veiws on taxes.

    GOOD NIGHT

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:25am

    maasch!?

    you read the book and you can't even explain the principles?

    tisk tisk tisk

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 12:36am

70. "Income taxes are the most open and honest form of taxation. "..

    According to you only...not one tax pro that I have heard or read.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:28am

    well maasch, you cant even explain the principles laid out in...

    THE FAIR TAX BOOK

    what makes you think you uderstand what tax pros are saying?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 12:38am

71. Ms. vanden Heuvel is the classic limousine liberal, in that her wealth is inherited wealth, and her family went all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid paying inheritance taxes on it. Taxes , for Ms. vdH and her ilk , are something the other guy pays. I would bet that the wealthy Senator Reid also has a tax avoidance scheme set up for his heirs, as do Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, et al, ad nauseum.

    Posted by Ctmom at 08/07/2006 @ 02:44am

72. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 9:22pm You can quote all the % you want, buit YOUR ploy won't wash here with me ... and it is very simple. It is their money ... to me it doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks "they" should get by on 50 cents or $50 million. It is not your money and your opinions are valid but have no weight on someone else property.

    If they do not wish to participate in the public process, then all they have to do is to give back every bit of public property they have or make use of. Stop using the public right of way. Stop making use of technology someone else developed. Stop relying on the protection of limited liability and contract. Stop using banks protected by the Federal Reserve's lender of last resort powers. Don't call the police when someone threatens them or the fire department if there is a fire. Don't use publically-backed money at all, since after all that is a public facility. Don't stand behind the shield of a nation's defense force.

    Private everything.

    Barter their massive technology and corporate-organization free intrinsic worth for a self-sufficient island and go it alone.

    Otherwise its a case of taking when society offers something useful but not giving anything in return. In other words, a classic suburban libertarian driving their 33% subsidized "private" car to their job in a government-protected-from-full-liability corporation buying and selling productive assets relying on government-backed contracts and complaining about how "they" are "taking" the money "we" earn.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/07/2006 @ 03:04am

73. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/06/2006 @ 11:53pm Have you never read one of my posts? Apparently not,,,as I am for taxes, just not the current model .. I prefer consumption and not income of any kind.

    Don't forget that you are demanding that ALL of your posts be read, because there is no more justification for a consumption tax than there is for an income tax, an estate tax, or a gift tax.

    The main difference is that with a consumption tax, people who do not have the money to save money pay the tax on 100% of their income, and people who have enough money to save half their money pay the tax on 50% of their income.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/07/2006 @ 03:08am

74. .

    THE FOLLOWING IS AN ORIGINAL WORK – NOT a Cut & Paste piece.

    I suggest you copy it and save it.

    911wasinsidejob, why would you think that Israel is blackmailing U.S? I thought that U.S. and Israel were partners.

    By: EZZYT on August 06, 2006 at 09:18pm

    Start with the concept of their own document entitled "A Clean Break."

    http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    Note that it is written by those who were put INSIDE THE US GOVERNMENT in positions to cause the US to go into a war based on false pretense (Wurmser, Feith, Libby, Perle).

    The first two paragraphs of the document mention the word "Zionism" three times. Clearly, Zionism is the focus...not Israel, not the United States, not peace...ZIONISM.

    From the document:

    "Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism."

    "This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power."

    " Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas"

    " Forge a new basis for relations with the United States stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform."

    Zionism IS NOT JUDAISM

    ZIONISM IS CONTRARY TO JUDAISM

    First and foremost, Zionism means one thing...Populating Israel with Jews by compelling Jews the world over to move to Israel. Note I did not say by "Enticing" them – I said by "COMPELLING" them.

    Clean Break is about breaking with the United States. It's about sucking the host dry and moving forward. The only way to compel Jews in the United States to move to Israel is to make their lives in the US miserable.

    The goal of the Zionists is for ALL Jews to move to Israel. How then can the Zionists make the lives of American Jews so unpleasant that they are compelled to leave the United States?

    This would require either making portions of the US uninhabitable (Chernobyl effect), or fueling so much anti-Semitism that Jews feel unsafe in the United States, or destroying the US economy.

    Assume that all three of the above are in their plan.

    No one benefits more from anti-Semitism than Zionists.

    THE STATE OF ISRAEL HAS DECLARED ALL-OUT WAR ON THE JEWISH PEOPLE WORLDWIDE

    Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel told the crowd at a Rome hotel. "We are witness to a great wave of anti-Semitism, and apart from the usual anti-Semitism against Jews, there is today the added hate of the collective Jew, which is Israel."… "The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews," he said. (BBC website of Monday, 17 November, 2003

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3275979.stm)

    This is Zionism in reality:

    Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has urged all French Jews to move to Israel immediately to escape anti-Semitism.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3904943.stm

    The Israeli prime minister has told Jews in Italy the best way to escape "a great wave of anti-Semitism" is to move and settle in the state of Israel.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3275979.stm

    Clearly, PEACE is not the goal. Moving all the Jews to Israel is the goal. In order to accommodate millions of new residents, Israel must "Expand The Realm" to create "Eretz Israel"

    What is "Eretz Israel?

    THIS is Eretz Israel:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

    In order to accommodate this greatly expanded population, the Zionists know that they must control the water supply in order to "make the desert bloom." It is no coincidence that Israeli operatives within the US Government compelled the US Military to invade Iraq, which has abundant water:

    http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/07/00_dionisi_why-2017-is-optim istic.htm

    It is further no coincidence that the Israeli ground forces in Lebanon sought to force the entire population there North Of The River.

    As protests against Israel's genocide of Lebanon begin to gain strength in the United States, the Israeli-controlled US Media will be quick to call this "A New Wave Of anti-Semitism in the United States."

    Remember this...

    Virtually EVERYTHING that is happening is scripted, based on a time table that was written years earlier.

    Nothing is a coincidence.

    The media has already received its instructions about comparing protests against Israel to anti-Semitism. These themes will be hammered home across the popular media –

    ALL "anti-Semitism" – ALL THE TIME.

    Mel Gibson was just the opening salvo in the media manipulation of the citizens of the United States. The Media's GOAL is to foster anti-Semitism.

    The ZIONISTS ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM.

    They CONTROL THE MEDIA.

    Central casting has already arranged for the Brown Shirt Nazi Storm Troopers to appear at these protests, and these are the images that you will see on your televisions whenever protests against Israel occur within the United States.

    The Cover of TIME Magazine will feature their lead character with a headline that screams:

    "THE NEW FACE OF ANTI-SEMITISM"

    The goal of the Zionists is for America's Jews to be FORCED TO LEAVE AMERICA.

    America's Jews are being duped.

    ZIONISM IS AT WAR WITH JUDAISM.

    The reason that Israel is blackmailing the leadership of the United States is - BECAUSE THEY CAN.

    Our so-called leaders, selected by AIPAC for their low moral character, are the type of people who are easily manipulated. They take the bait. As was the case with Bill Clinton and Gary Condit (and countless others whom you've not yet heard about), Israel's SEXPIONAGE unit sends the likes of Monica Lewinsky and Chandra Levy in to seduce, then compromise America's leaders.

    Israeli Sexpionage : The McGreevey, Condit and Clinton Affairs

    http://www.aztlan.net/israeli_sexpionage.htm

    Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky – "Swallows" for Israel.

    Isn't it interesting that Lieberman's name pops up in the case of two similar-looking tarts, who were "Honey Pots" (or "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?

    Note that this article is dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html

    Did Levy learn about the 9/11 plan?

    Cheney just happened to be meeting with Condit at precisely the moment Levy disappears? Nice alibi!

    CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT TO PROTECT THE 9/11 OPERATION?

    Who was Jeff Gannon working for when he compromised the entire White House? Why did that story drop out of the headlines? They're saving it. The truth is only valuable as leverage when it has yet to be revealed.

    When Cheney and Rumsfeld partnered with Mossad to implement the attacks of 9/11, Mossad recorded every meeting and phone call. The assumed partnership between the US Shadow Government and Israel was not a partnership at all...it was a STING Operation.

    George Bush Senior quite literally own the CIA – and he is the main individual being blackmailed. 41 and Mossad ran drugs together for decades. Clinton ran cover for Bush 41 and the Mena Operation.

    Israel quite literally controls the entire US Nuclear arsenal. They control the targeting of all our missiles, and they have the launch codes. Israel is 100% in control of the United States.

    This capability was the direct result of the work of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. It is NO COINCIDENCE that the recent arrest and conviction of Larry Franklin in the AIPAC SPY SCANDAL was centered around Franklins passing intelligence on IRAN to Israel.

    Israel is demanding that Cheney Nuke Iran. Cheney is being forced to create a pretext to justify the attack – otherwise Israel will simply launch one of our nuclear missiles on Iran and make it appear that we struck them for no good reason.

    The reason why Democrats are so reluctant to stop the Republican agenda is that they are all fully aware that Israel is running the show. Israel hijacked the Republican party and the Christian coalition to do its bidding.

    The evidence that Bin Laden had no role in 9/11 is overwhelming. The CIA shut down its Bin Laden Unit months ago, and the FBI admits it is not seeking Bin Laden in connection with 9/11.

    If you take the time to read the various MANIFESTOS published by the Zionists over the past decade, and compare their words to the actual events that have followed, it is clear that the plan is being followed to the letter.

    I leave you with this:

    "In executing this plan they have successfully escalated anti-Semitism throughout the world.

    There is great pain that the press and politicians are calling the actions of the Zionist movement "Jewish actions."

    With these words they are helping the Zionists to fulfill their dreams.

    We call upon the world again to understand that the state of "Israel" does not represent the Jewish faith and traditions and that Zionists are the greatest enemies to the Jewish people.

    We appeal to people of good will in the media itself to open their minds and hearts to what we are proclaiming about the truth of Judaism, which has been distorted by the Zionists."

    http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=53448

    "Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

    Michael Rivera

    SO NOW YOU KNOW.

    What are you going to do about it?

    Save your Jewish friends from the fate that the Zionists have in mind for them.

    STOP THE ZIONISTS

    .

    Posted by plunger at 08/07/2006 @ 08:24am

75. God, you people are idiots. I used to read these blogs because I wanted an opposing view. But none of you are serious. You sound like a high school debating team. At some point you will have to live in the real world and unless you are a hollywood millionaire your view will begin to change.

    You sing the praises of killing the minimum wage increase which people really need just so you think you can beat the Republicans. A truly hollow victory. The Republicans can say we tried to raise the minimum wage but Harry Reid wouldn't let us. Plus they get to keep the minimum wage down which is what you say they want. Plus they get to say that that the Democrats are willing to sacrifice the needs of the poor to make another attempt at stopping anything the Republicans want. I noticed that the Nation, at the same time as running this piece, has stopped its ranting about the urgent need for a minimum wage increase. I am a Repbulican who will never have to worry about the estate tax, and I say who cares if someone gets to keep what they earned and how does that relate to helping some hardworking person from getting an increase in the below needed minimum wage.

    And, let me get my two cents in for Joe Lieberman. He has supported the war not because he sides with the President but because he beleives it is the right way to protect us from muslim terrorsts. You certainly disagree with his position, but name for me one politician on either side that has the political courage to stand up for his beliefs. Not Ned Lamont, a millionaire opportunist.

    You really need to pay attention and make informed comments.

    Posted by wredner at 08/07/2006 @ 08:42am

76. Posted by WREDNER 08/07/2006 @ 08:42am

    the republicans can pass a minimum wage bill that includes nothing more that than an increase in the minimum wage

    or the democrats can pass it after they take back congress

    and then ol gee dubya can veto it

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 08:50am

77. but thanks for stoppin by

    Posted by Will C. at 08/07/2006 @ 08:51am

78. "The Republicans can say we tried to raise the minimum wage but Harry Reid wouldn't let us. Plus they get to keep the minimum wage down which is what you say they want. Plus they get to say that that the Democrats are willing to sacrifice the needs of the poor to make another attempt at stopping anything the Republicans want."

    Posted by WREDNER 08/07/2006 @ 08:42am

    Lawdy my head is fairly spinning trying to follow your complex reasoning !! But thanks for 'splaining it to us idiots so's we kin unerstand it more better.

    Seriously, do you honestly think you're the only one with a fourth grade education around here ?

    Normaly I abhor personal attacks but in your case I'll make an exception. You sir ( or madam ) are "eat up with the dumb ass" as we used to say back in Alabama.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/07/2006 @ 10:07am

79. R. Neckerson:

    That was classic.

    Me, I go with "have head up ass, will travel" when addressing some of our neocon bloggers on other sites.

    Posted by Rapaport at 08/07/2006 @ 10:33am

80. Bruice,

    "If they do not wish to participate in the public process"..

    who says they don't want to participate? They just don't want to be robbed.

    "Don't forget that you are demanding that ALL of your posts be read"

    don't care if none of my posts are read..it just helps when commenting on what I say if you have read the posts.

    " there is no more justification for a consumption tax than there is for an income tax, an estate tax, or a gift tax"

    Change the system by congressional drop income and move to consumption tax. An act of congress is all the jusrifactio one needs.

    " there is no more justification for a consumption tax than there is for an income tax, an estate tax, or a gift tax"..jibberish.

    Consumption tax places everyone in the system where cuurently many pay nothing at all, including the wealthy, wehich is no right any more than a few pay eberything.

    A consumption tax really is fair to all.

    The book The Fair Tax makes a complelling case. It may need some twinking, but that is what congress does best..how do you think we ened up with a tax code that weighs 80 lbs?..twinking and that is because the current system is designed to be twinked..the simple consumption tax is simple and not very easy to twink, but one could allow for exmptions that are transparent.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 10:44am

81. Rap,

    Red N's comments may be classic to you, but the point remains that the Dems don't look so compasisionate on this one, but just political...really helped those guys who need that raise didn't they?..

    Now thats a classic.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/07/2006 @ 10:47am

82. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/06/2006 @ 11:55pm: So, why isn't the government taking my property via a consumption tax also no better than a thief who comes into my house and steals from me?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 12:25am: Read ... my posts, and you can avoid your stupid questions about me and my veiws on taxes.

    Why is it a stupid question, Mr. Maasch?

    Is it stupid solely because you are unable to answer it?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 10:52am

83. Mr. Maasch:

    Attaching the estate tax repeal to the minimum wage bill was a political stunt. It was asinine. People who take real notice of what goes on here in DC know who is to blame for the wage hike being shelved. The same way they knew who was to blame in 1995, when the government was shut down for two weeks. Gingrich thought that was a good idea, at the time. It didn't work out so well for him in the end.

    This fall, we'll see how well these asinine stunts pay off for certain incumbents.

    Posted by Rapaport at 08/07/2006 @ 10:56am

84. Maasch:

    The DEMs have been willing to give that raise for years now. The REP-led Congress has failed to raise the wage for the longest time in history. Now REPs condition it on giving yet another tax break to the wealthy.

    People see right through that bullshit.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:02am

85. Posted by HMAN23 08/07/2006 @ 11:02am: People see right through that bullshit.

    People do.

    But, not Mr. Maasch.

    Perhaps he is a chimpanzee?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/07/2006 @ 11:16am

86. People see right through that bullshit.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/07/2006 @ 11:02am | ignore this person

    Will they?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 11:29am

87. I'm from WV. I have actively back Byrd for Senate. I give what little money I can and attend his rallies when close-by. I fail to understand how he could have voted against us on this. The city I live in, Parkersburg has roughly 40k citizens. I would wager maybe 5-10 would benefit from the repeal of this tax. In all of WV there MIGHT be 100 people who would get a break. And 90% of those are like right wing activists such as coal baron Don Blankenship, C.E.O. of Massey Energy. What on earth is Byrd thinking of? I will certainly vote for him come November, but I will remember this betrayal.

    Posted by jeffjohnson at 08/07/2006 @ 11:42am

88. If you making minimum wage your employer is telling you that he would pay you less if he could. If you are an adult and only making minumum wage in this tight job market then you are a loser of monumental proportions.

    Posted by dscott at 08/07/2006 @ 11:50am

89. principles don't matter, maasch, only numbers.

    as a principle, you might be against abortion, too. but look at the numbers, bro. you want a couple extra billion children on your hands? plus the associated costs to society?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/07/2006 @ 11:55am

90. I will certainly vote for him come November, but I will remember this betrayal.

    Posted by JEFFJOHNSON 08/07/2006 @ 11:42am | ignore this person

    JEFF, no offense, but once Byrd has your vote...does he really need to care about your "memory"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 12:22pm

91. Will they?

    Posted by MASK 08/07/2006 @ 11:29am

    Yes, and it will not take a 3000 page dissertation either.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/07/2006 @ 1:05pm

92. I would bet that the wealthy Senator Reid also has a tax avoidance scheme set up for his heirs, as do Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, et al, ad nauseum.

    Posted by CTMOM 08/07/2006 @ 02:44am | ignore this person

    I notice you left off of your little list there, Republican Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, who set up a 'blind trust', a nice little "...tax avoidance scheme set up for his heirs..." and got in a bit of trouble because it turned our to be not so 'blind'...which is against the law.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2006 @ 1:10pm

93. Posted by CTMOM 08/07/2006 @ 02:44am

    Sure, Mom - Democrats and liberal editors corner the market on "tax avoidance schemes". The unfortunate conservative millionaires haven't figured it out - they pay full boat on their estate taxes for some reason.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/07/2006 @ 1:20pm

94. Yes, and it will not take a 3000 page dissertation either.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/07/2006 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

    How many will it take? Fewer than...

    "I wanted to give you a Minimum Wage increase, but my Democratic opponent was too worried about 'evil rich guys' getting a tax cut as well...to care about your pay raise"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/07/2006 @ 1:28pm

95. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 10:44am "If they do not wish to participate in the public process"..

    who says they don't want to participate? They just don't want to be robbed.

    They aren't being robbed, are they? They wouldn't have the wealth without the benefit they have taken from the public. So if they take the bulk of the benefit, and then insist that someone else bears a higher proportional tax.

    This constant refrain of, "it's mine, I earned it, it's mine, you can't have it" ignores that fact that the income would not exist without public action to create it and protect it.

    The proposal that the poor should pay tax on all their income, and the rich can decide to reduce the share of tax they pay by accumulating wealth, is simple. It is a proposal to further entrench an aristocracy of wealth and privilage.

    Combine that with the complete and utter rejection of the principle of "no taxation without representation" that is contained in the assertion that "my elected representatives are robbing me", and it is profoundly anti-American. America is in its ideals suppose to be a democratic land of opportunity ... not the land of a permanent aristocracy of wealth and a permanent underclass that you propose.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/07/2006 @ 1:29pm

96. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/07/2006 @ 10:44am A consumption tax really is fair to all.

    No, it is not. The only way to duck on a broad-based consumption tax is to accumulate wealth. People with money to save have more money than people without money to save. A consumption tax offers an option to high income earners to reduce their total tax obligation by accumulating wealth instead of consuming their income. An option that is not available to people on a low income.

    The broad based consumption tax idea is a proposal to fix the inequities of a regressive payroll social security tax and an income tax code heavily damage by pandering to wealthy interests by establishing a tax system that intrinsically panders to the wealthy.

    Far better to go through the tax system and replace all deductions not required by the Constitution with tax credits set at the marginal rate paid on the median income. Then tax subsidies would be fair across the board, instead of undermining the only fair tax system, which is a progressive income tax.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 08/07/2006 @ 2:58pm

97. MASK -

    Couldn't get it in as few words as you, but much less than 3000:

    "After doing nothing for ten years, Republicans conditioned a $2.10 per hour raise on providing an average $1,400,000 tax credit to the nation's richest families that would add billions to our deficit, requiring huge cuts in services that benefit working-class people. You see, even though you pay your taxes and deserve a raise after ten years, Republicans will only give you one if their rich contributors can get out of paying their taxes first. Don't be fooled by my opponent. Ask yourself when was the last time that Republicans passed a law that didn't benefit rich folks more than it did you. This Republican-controlled Congress will not do the right thing and give you a deserved raise without bootstrapping yet another fiscally-irresponsible benefit to the rich that ends up harming you and the country in the long run. If Democrats win a majority in Congress, however, we will provide an even higher raise to you, without conditions, AND maintain that people fortunate enough to inherit millions pay their fair share of taxes."

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/07/2006 @ 5:24pm

98. How many will it take? Fewer than...

    "I wanted to give you a Minimum Wage increase, but my Democratic opponent was too worried about 'evil rich guys' getting a tax cut as well...to care about your pay raise"?

    Posted by MASK 08/07/2006 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person

    Here you go Mask...and it used FEWER words than your 'Republican' BS!

    The Republicans tried to gain by blackmail what they couldn't achieve through democracy by holding the working poor hostage until they received their ransom of tax cuts for the rich.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2006 @ 6:08pm

99. Of course, I don't make a living at writing political message 'snippets' so someone who is a pro should be able to polish considerably...but you get the idea.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/07/2006 @ 6:11pm

100. Posted by darladoon at 08/07/2006 @ 7:06pm

101. just how much taxes do billionaires avoid paying?

     http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080706F.shtml

     Posted by darladoon at 08/07/2006 @ 7:07pm

102. "I wanted to give you a Minimum Wage increase, but my Democratic opponent was too worried about 'evil rich guys' getting a tax cut as well...to care about your pay raise"?

     Posted by MASK 08/07/2006 @ 1:28pm

     Give it up Mask. This is the umpteenth post, with the same message. Only a complete moron would see it that way. And you know it.

     For someone who spends so much time and energy, playing devils advocate, (to the left only), sometimes you come off as desperate to make a point. Or dense. This is one of those times.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/07/2006 @ 7:51pm

103. eric---

     mask and maasch are trolls of the very worst kind. they are so bored with their lives, that they do nothing but troll left wing sites and start arguments, most of the time without actually making a point......

     Posted by darladoon at 08/07/2006 @ 8:08pm

104. Darladoon,

     Maasch never makes a point, not easily refuted.

     But, mask is an expert troll. He excells at making psuedo-points, that tend to bait people into debate. Sure, he's annoying, but unlike the rest of the righties around here, he's usually pretty good at it. (Maybe it is his constant attmpts to try to act non-partisan, even though all of his posts are obviously partisan.)

     Either way, this ain't on of those psuedo-points...just thought i'd clue him in. So he can go get some rest. He needs his energy to monitor 'The Nation' and always be the first to post. (Not to mention the time and energy, invested to come up with some of this shit.)

     But, thanks for the warning anyway. :o)

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 08/07/2006 @ 8:46pm

105. The thing about Mask's comment is the perfect circle that it makes, because it is posted in reply to a blog that highlights the cynical phony roll call ploy. It's like those campaign "debates" where the politician stays "on message" no matter what the actual question was.

     Posted by BruceMcF at 08/08/2006 @ 12:01pm