Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republican Blackmail

Democrats and Republicans may be defined by the people they try to help. Democrats work for the little guy, as shown by their constant pursuit of an increase in the minimum wage. Republicans work for the rich guy as shown by their long pursuit of the rollback of the estate tax. However, Republicans also boast a “values” agenda that led them to combine the minimum-wage increase and estate-tax rollback into one bill.

Yes, indeed, Republicans in the senate are telling Democrats that if they want an increase in the minimum wage they must vote for a rollback of the estate tax. Unbelievable! Here's what Sen. Edward Kennedy said:

"Its political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans."

The Republicans love their super-rich friends so much, they are sacrificing their "values" with a blackmail offer of a raise in the minimum wage. Up to now they have been telling us how much it would hurt our economy to add slightly to the minimum of wage of the poorest among us. But such "values" mean nothing to them when compared to helping their super-rich friends. As the gadflyer puts it:

"The Republicans want to blackmail minimum wage workers: you don't get a raise until Paris Hilton gets a tax cut."

This is disgusting. These issues are separate. There is no reason to combine them. Everybody knows that Republicans are for estate-tax reduction and against minimum-tax increase; and Democrats are for minimum-wage increase and against estate-tax reduction.

This is Republican blackmail and should be resisted by Democrats. You can bet your life that regardless how the Democrats vote, Republicans will attack. If Democrats agree, Republicans will crow that they were not the only ones voting for the estate tax rollback; the Democrats joined. If Democrats disagree, Republicans will scream that Democrats are hypocritical because they voted against the minimum wage increase.

Tell your Democratic senator that he or she should never give into Republican blackmail. Tell your senators to vote NO on this outrageous bill.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 28, 2006 5:12 PM
Comments
Comment #171486

Paul:

I am so sick and tired of these Republicans, I have run out of words….

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 28, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #171491

Looks like the Republicans don’t know whether they’re coming or going. I think we should clarify things for them, towards the latter.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #171492

I want the republicans to name one family farm that had to be sold to pay the estate tax. They want to give tax break to the likes of the Hilton sister while not alowing on a stright up or down vote on increasing minimum wage they should be ashamed. Get rid of all of them in Nov. Earl

Posted by: Earl at July 28, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #171496

Paul…nothing sinister in this plan. Conservatives have always been against the estate tax because it is just plain wrong to tax an estate comprised of assets on which taxes have already been paid.
How do you conclude that it discriminates against anyone when a person, who has worked all his/her life to accumulate wealth, paid their taxes, and obeyed all the tax laws, doesn’t agree to be taxed again simply because of their success?
Since when does this country penalize hard work and success? How does that benefit low wage earners?
Oh…wait…I believe I do understand. YOu wish to rob these hard working folks who have the bad luck to die and give the fruit of their labor to someone else. Hurrah for you, Robin Hood. I believe you have the right, as well as Ted Kennedy, Soros, and all the well-heeled libs to donate any or all of your assets to the U.S. Treasury…no questions asked. But, please, don’t think that any hard working, successful conservatives will be joining you and them in that kind of stupidity. Jim

Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #171500

Jim,

I see where you’re coming from. The problem is that the estate tax is already there. It’s the status quo. So, changing it will always be viewed as “giving” something to the ones who are affected by the tax. And since we already count on that “revenue” to balance the budget - er, I mean, decrease our annual deficit - if you’re going to eliminate it, you really need to figure out either a new “revenue” source or cut some spending.

The other problem with the “fairness” argument is that you could apply the same logic to a sales tax (or pretty much any tax other than the income tax.) I mean, we all pay income tax on the money we earn, so by definition ANY other tax is taxing money that you’ve already paid taxes on.

But I see where you’re coming from. The thing is that any time money moves from one person to another, the government is going to take a cut. In this case, one of those people just happens to be dead.

Posted by: Jeff at July 28, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #171503

Jim,
The recipients of the estate pay the tax. It is taxable income for recipients.

Posted by: phx8 at July 28, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #171504

I am tired of Democrates falling into Republican traps. Democrates need to “suck it up” and vote yes for the minimum wage bill regardless of the tax break attachments.

We need to gain control of congress and/or the White house. On election day voters will only remember that democrates voted against a minimum wage increase.

As long as we are in the minority we are lucky if we can win small victories.

Let’s not play into the republicans hand. Let’s not be so predictable! Let’s win back congress in November, then we can set the agenda.

Vote yes on the minimum wage bill!

Posted by: Gladys at July 28, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #171505

“Conservatives have always been against the estate tax because it is just plain wrong to tax an estate comprised of assets on which taxes have already been paid.”

OK - one, this is the passing of wealth from one person to another. That is where the tax comes into play. This is no different than if I were to Will/Pass my estate to one of my neighbors or friends. You give someone money - whether it’s in the form of a paycheck or inheritance check - you have to pay taxes.

Why do rich people’s kids get to live tax free while still getting government services when poor poeple’s kids have to pay their fair share?

When my child turns 18 (adult) she is no more eligable for my income or wealth than any other adult. If I give her money, she should legally report it as income - but we all know that’s going to happen. However, when someone gets $600,000 or more, then yes - they pay taxes because in is a source of revenue - much like winning the lottery.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #171506

I am all for raising the mimumin wage, and to do away with the estate tax.

Hey I am retired military, plus I work full time. I pay taxes on my work pay as I should, but I also pay federal taxes on my retirement. So is that double taxation without representation? My congress people don’t really represent me, but their kiss-ass friends and businessess

Posted by: KT at July 28, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #171507

Why do people believe the rich need tax relief? They didn’t need that kind of help to spur the economy on in the 90s. The people who actually needed more money were the middle class and the poor. Yet time and time again, the Republicans, despite their pretensions of populism, side with those who of all the people in this country need the least help, and by virtue of their wealth and position should have greater obligations and responsibilities laid on them anyways. It’s absolutely selfish to tie more irresponsible erosion of our revenues in this time of deficit to rise in wages workers have had a long time coming. The whole problem here is that the Republicans can’t do anything for the more disadvantaged without giving a gimmee to those who least need it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #171508

Thanks Jeff for your response. Frankly, I don’t like any tax but I do understand they are necessary for our Federal, State and Local governments to survive and perform actions that benefit those from whom the tax is levied. My state, Texas, is one of the few that has not been allowed by its residents to enact a state income tax. We do have a sales tax in the county in which I reside of 8 1/4 percent. The residents of this state and my county have agreed to this tax and have no real complaints with it. Texas right now has a budget surplus of around 8 billion. What I object to is the taxing of so called “wealthy people” simply because of their success and certainly not with their consent as is the case with state and local taxes. Jim

Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #171512

second - I pay payroll taxes & distribution of profits taxes (own my own company.) I also pay my mortgage, and bought 2 cars with money that had already been taxed, yet I pay property tax every year. I also pay tax when I sell my property. I pay tax when i buy things at the store and when I buy gas. I also pay vehicle taxes & road taxes… all from income that has already been taxed.

So why do you feel that only the rich deserve to not pay taxes on money that has already been taxed? Where is your concern for the rest of us?

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #171514

And third -the point of this post - why can’t the REPs just vote how they feel on a single issue? Why do they have to cloud the issue by trying to drop in a totally unrelated issue simply to make their friends happy? They can equally be discussed on the separate merrits of either, and if they feel strongly that the minimum wage is not a ggod thing to raise, then they should have the backbone to publicly say so. If they are too afraid thaat their backers will not approve them raising the minimum wage, well that’s their problem - it should not taint the business of running OUR government.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #171515

As for the actual bill, there is no reason for Democrats to vote for it. Vote against it, and pass the desired legislation after November. If Democracts do not win the midterms, they are in the same position as now.

Posted by: phx8 at July 28, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #171516

jim please don’t try to sell the fox news flash that the the estate tax is a tax paid after the money was alredy taxed. big news for you, so is gas tax an all the other taxes an fees we pay as the middle class of this country.look at world hist. the past will tell you how good for a country it is to hold all the money in the hands of a small group of it’s people.the CEO wage package of today is a sick joke..the bills have to be paid so how about we charge the dems.2,000 to vote to make up the money you people have aready spent in the last 6 years,,,tom

Posted by: tom at July 28, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #171517

WEll, it just amazes me how some of the writers here are all for a redistribution of wealth. Someone wrote that the estate tax is merely a tax on the heir as income. Why is that tax not levied on everyone who inherits? Right back to square one…only levy the tax on those who by luck or hard work have amassed assests which exceed a certain arbitrary amount determined by envy and an “entitlement mentality”. Is this not true? Jim

Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #171518

“it is just plain wrong to tax an estate comprised of assets on which taxes have already been paid.”

They are only taxing the ones receiving the money which THEY DID NOT EARN! The fact it’s a family member receiving it doesn’t change that fact. ALL money has been taxed at some point. Taxes are paid when money CHANGES HANDS, which it is doing when it’s given, AS INCOME, to an already rich kid.
Rethink your argument. It’s already had enough holes punched in it.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #171519

PAUL WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALIZE THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE EARNER DOSENT VOTE? HES TOO STUPID. SO IN PANDERING TO HIM YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME.
BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO YOU LEFT HANDED THREADS IS VOTES, YOU ARE CUTTING YOUR OWN THROATS. THOSE OF US WHO MAKE MORE THAN THE MINIUM WAGE DONT FEEL LIKE PAYING MORE FOR TACOS,SO ONCE AGAIN YOU LOSE

Posted by: JC at July 28, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #171521

“WEll, it just amazes me how some of the writers here are all for a redistribution of wealth. “

Your terminology is completely innacurate. You pay taxes on money when it changes hands. Like when your employer pays you, when you pay for goods and services, AND when a kid of a rich guy is given large amounts of money. Has NOTHING to do with redistributing wealth (an RNC talking point term).
Every financial transaction is ‘redistributing wealth’. It’s an overused, meaningless term.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #171522

“I pay taxes on my work pay as I should, but I also pay federal taxes on my retirement. So is that double taxation without representation?”

Retirement contributions are taken out BEFORE taxes are paid. The taxes are “deffered”. Thus, you pay taxes when you receive your benefits.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #171523

“What I object to is the taxing of so called “wealthy people” simply because of their success”

Once again, THEY are not being taxed, the RECIPIENTS of their money are. The ones that DIDN’T earn it, and HAVN’T paid taxes on it yet.
Your overall argument on paying income tax in general is a seperate one. Sounds like your also against federal income tax? (your position on defense spending would be interesting to add to that debate)

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #171525

“PAUL WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALIZE THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE EARNER DOSENT VOTE? HES TOO STUPID.”

Ah, the Republican party platform in a nutshell.

“BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO YOU LEFT HANDED THREADS IS VOTES, YOU ARE CUTTING YOUR OWN THROATS”

Then perhaps your supposition is WRONG? Perhaps democrats are concerned with issues other than winning votes? Give that 2 seconds of thought and get back to us.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #171526

Observer, I haven’t seen any “holes” punched in anything I have written. When your kid inherits your assets do you expect the tax man to take his share or will your kid be exempt? Why is your kid more special than the kid who was lucky enough to be born in a family that accumulated more assets? HUH!
And…Tony, do you not suppose that persons of some wealth do not pay taxes on homes, cars, etc? I smell a lot of envy in these posts. Jim

Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #171527

The obvious answer is the FAIR TAX I don’t have the link but it is easily googled.

Stephen,
Since when is our taxes based on “need” Taxes should be just and fair.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 28, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #171531

“I smell a lot of envy in these posts”

Now that’s a load of… I smell something else.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #171534

Gosh Tony, you certainly have a way with words and I just love your well-thought-out arguments.

Tom makes an excellent point. At what point did our Federal tax system become based upon the Marxist philosophy…”Take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need! Jim

Posted by: Jim at July 28, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #171533

Everyone pays the same rate on their first $600,000, rich or poor. Isn’t that fair? Just like everyone pays no tax on the first amount of income they make… same amount for everyone.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 7:06 PM
Comment #171536

Perhaps democrats are concerned with issues.

Like what? helping a mayonnaise spreader make as much as a tradesman? If the fast fooder wants more money let him move up the food chain like the rest of us.

Posted by: jc at July 28, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #171539

If democrates vote against the minimum wage bill, they will have no chance to gain control of the senate or the house and it could be another decade before the idea of raising the minimum wage ever sees the light of day.

Is the “death tax”, “inheritance tax”, “rich people tax”, “what-ever-you-call-it” tax, really the issue we democrates want to loose the mid term elections over?

Posted by: gladys at July 28, 2006 7:15 PM
Comment #171541

Gladys: finally a liberal with some sense. Where did you come from?

Posted by: jc at July 28, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #171542

If the fast fooder wants more money let him move up the food chain like the rest of us.
JC—-most people would love to move up the food chain but cannot. A person working 40 hours/week on minimum wage now would make $10,000/year. So most people have to work more than one job just to survive at the bottom. Or live in homeless shelters with their kids WHILE they work full time. And Congress just passed a raise for themselves (again) with NO caveats or strings. They certainly seem to care about their own cost of living raises. I beleive they have increased their salaries a few times since the minimum wage was raised last time.

Posted by: judye at July 28, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #171543

“Gosh Tony, you certainly have a way with words and I just love your well-thought-out arguments.”

Wow, thanks… I’m just speechless. And your “you’re just jealous” - going to have to put that one in the ‘ole toolbelt.

“At what point did our Federal tax system become based upon the Marxist philosophy…”Take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need!”

At the point we as a society decided it would be best that way. Wow - WOW! Sounds really American, doesn’t it?

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #171545

“helping a mayonnaise spreader make as much as a tradesman? “

No - I don’t know any tradesman who only makes $7+ an hour. I’m thinking more like a single mother with 2 kids who works at Wal-Mart. We all want people to get off the government welfare rolls, so doesn’t it make since to make sure that people working full-time jobs should be able to get off those rolls?

Also, my brother-in-law is slightly mentally retarded, and does not have the ability to “work his way up the food chain” yet, he can do a basic minimum wage jobs extremely well… probably more so because it means quite a lot to him. So - should he live in poverty and rely on government assistance to make ends meet?

it’s either the employer who pays or we the tax payers. I vote the employer.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #171549

judye: At this point in time anyone can make more than 575 an hour if they want. They dont have to worry about their fast food job because we have guest workers who just do “the jobs americans wont do”. If they cant support their children mabey they shouldn’t have any. Its been my experience people at the bottom want to be there or they would move up on their own. As to the polits giving themselves raises, I agree most of those know nothings arn’t worth the minium wage.

Posted by: jc at July 28, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #171550

“At the point we as a society decided it would be best that way. Wow - WOW! Sounds really American, doesn’t it?”

And exactly and how did that happen? Can you give a link or other reference?

Posted by: Tom D. at July 28, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #171551

should be and exactly WHEN and how did that happen?

Posted by: tomd at July 28, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #171552

tony,
I’m an employer. Small business but 5 employees rely on me and my husband for their livlihoods. They are well paid (WAY over minimum wage) mechanics but we can’t afford to offer benefits. We pay more than $1500/quarter in workers comp, plus the employer portion of taxes (that’s over and above the employee’s contributions) of about 13% of the gross payroll, small business tax, state fees for just being in business and an additional $500/year for a registration certificate (license) then there’s the $200/year for the wrecker license plate. Oh, and don’t forget the business liability insurance, wrecker insurance, building/property insurance, local property taxes and personal property taxes on the contents of the building and the federal unemployment taxes and the state unemployment taxes……

As an employer, I kinda resent your cavalier attitude that the employer should pay the taxes. Guess what? We already do!

Posted by: Ilsa at July 28, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #171554

What the hell is a single women doing with 2 kids anyway? chanches are she was never married. So why should I pay more for underpants at walmart because she couldn’t keep her skirt down. Im sorry to hear about your brother in law but he is not societys responsiblity. Some people need government assistance, and we pay taxes for those who are truly in need, to recieve it. Harsh as it sounds a person should base his “means a lot to him” attitude on what he is able to accomplish with the cards delt him.

Posted by: jc at July 28, 2006 7:51 PM
Comment #171555

tomd -

We both know how it happened. It happened over the course of history.

We discovered that if you tax people beyond their means to pay, then they are less likely to work an honest job. We also discovered that the best way to tax people (as a society) is to allow people to make a certain amount of money before they are required to pay taxes (deductions) to allow them to cover their basic needs.

From there - we graduate the amount of tax a person pays… the higher the income then higher percentage of tax they pay. Why, because the damage done to those below those “steps” causes more harm to society as a whole than it causes to those who pay a higher percentage.

It’s all a balancing act that has been tweaked over time to reflect what society feels best. If, at some point, we all feel that the rich should not pay tax on their income, then that’s a choice to be made… But for now, everyone who receives something of value must pay tax on it - because our country costs money to run and we all benefit from that. Again, there are exemptions (especially for those who can afford tax consultation) and other ways to avoid paying taxes on estates (living estates, trust funds… etc.) so, don’t feel too bad for the rich… I think they’ll get by OK.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #171556

“This is Republican blackmail and should be resisted by Democrats.”

Paul, you cannot be serious. Compromise is how government has worked for the last 150 years. Blackmail? Do you really believe this is a recent tactic? I also suggest you take a look at why republicans cut taxes on the rich. The “help their rich buddy” argument is a DNC talking points and completely decietful. BTW, how many poor folks do you see creating jobs?

It is about as baseless as the Reps claim that Dems are great at handouts and keeping the poor and jobless….well…. poor and jobless. Tremedous amount of truth in the accusation but somewhat accurate.

When dealing with partisan politics, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 28, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #171557

what exactly is the tax rate on inherited amounts? 20%, 30%, 40%????? How much is enough? how much is too much?

just wondering….

Posted by: Ilsa at July 28, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #171558

KT
Since you did not contribute to your military retirement plan you are paying taxes for the first time.

Posted by: Ken at July 28, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #171561

“…What the hell is a single women doing with 2 kids anyway? chanches are she was never married. So why should I pay more for underpants at walmart because she couldn’t keep her skirt down……”

This is an example what is wrong with our elected officials and most of America today. We cannot seem to debate issues without attacking the messenger.

Your personal attacks on this woman was not appreciated nor warrented.

Posted by: Gladys at July 28, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #171562

“What the hell is a single women doing with 2 kids anyway? chanches are she was never married.”

OK - make that a mother working at Wal-Mart with a husband in Iraq and trying to raise 2 kids. Or do you think she should’ve kept her skirt down as well? At what economic point/salary can a single woman raise her skirt? (Or am I getting this mixed up with Prostitution?)

(Wow - I have to say that I thought statements like that dies off 50 years ago.)

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #171563

Ken
I beg to differ with you. Military pay taxes just like you do, so in essence they do contribute to their retirement.

Posted by: KAP at July 28, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #171564

The only people that would benefit from an estate tax repeal are the super-rich.To quote Treasury Secretary Rubin,”If you believe in equality of opportunity then you must support an estate tax.” Warren Buffet says much the same,”I don’t believe in dynastic wealth.” That is what we are talking about. The Reps goal is to permantly install a hereditary ruling class. That is what we fought the revolution to rid ourselves of. The notion that these people are hard working is absurd. What did they do? Put in a lot of overtime? Most of them would rather chew off a foot than put in a real days work.

Repealing the estate tax adds greatly to the deficit. It will just make it that much harder for the federal government to honor its social security promises. You know, the promises made to people that do real work.

There is no better example than this to show the difference in parties. I hope those of you that say there is no difference between the two will pay attention and remember this. It could not be more clear.
Icreasing the minimum wage is good for business. It also raises the floor for everyone that works for wages. That is the real reason it gets so much opposition. Wages are flat if you hadn’t noticed while prices rise.

Posted by: BillS at July 28, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #171566

JC -

Since you seem to be so ready to deal out judgement on people you don’t know… I’ll share a story with you.

A woman I know very well had a husband who died of a heart attack at the age of 43… young, but it was a bad heart from the start. They had 2 boys… and I watched her loose both sons to a very rare degenerative disease - both at 5 years old. Her husband died shortly after the first son died. Both parents had a genetic issue ( a gap), but it had not surfaced in several generations. I also watched her loose her job because of her “inability to show up to work.”

She had never developed marketable skills - and I guess she would not have even worked if her husband had been able to continue his job. Bad heart means slow worker, I guess… got fired.

The mom is now working and doing as best as she can, but she will never (NEVER) pay off her medical bills. She gets assistance from local charities and the government. She has no real skills and is getting older, I don’t see her ever getting that much above the minimum wage.

Is this OK in your book because she should’ve only asked for what she could afford - and left all this wishful thinking about having a family to others who could better afford it.

This woman is not an exceptional woman, nor is her story that unusual… people face hard times, and life can be cruel. Can’t we as a society (and those of us who can afford to) extend these people the minimal decency to live a life above poverty if they are willing to make the effort of a full-time job? Can we also minimize our judgement of others until we at least meet them face to face?

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #171567

Paul,

“Democrats work for the little guy, as shown by their constant pursuit of an increase in the minimum wage.”

That’s simpleton thinking. It’s like saying the only way to get more tax revenue is to raise taxes … not too ingenious to the say the least. Here’s the problem with the minimum wage increase:

(1) It gets a lot of people fired if businesses can’t support the increase for all of it’s employees.
(2) The DNC supports a hefty raise yet it also supports illegal immigration which explicitly undermines and circumvents the minimum wage. Oxymoron Magnanamus.

And there the democrats go again calling middle class people “super-rich”.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 28, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #171568

Observer

KT wasn’t talking about a monthly contribution to an IRA or other private sector retirement plan. He is talking about his military pension.

I am a 20-year military veteran with two combat tours in Vietnam and I draw a monthly pension. I pay federal income taxes on my military retirement and my wife also pays federal income taxes on her Social Security disability because our total household income exceeds a certain level.

We don’t pay state income tax on either one and we shouldn’t have to pay federal taxes, especially on my military pension.

I’m still packing around pieces of an North Vietnamese rocket propelled grenade. You’d think that would be worth something.

I guess I’m just supposed to be grateful that I’m still here to pay taxes!

Posted by: vietnam_vet at July 28, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #171570

gladys: A mother of too with a husband in Iraq gets enough to live on. If she wants more she should marry a yuppie instead of a soldier. A single woman that raises her skirt is a unpaid whore why should we pay for her offspring?

Posted by: jc at July 28, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #171571

“(1) It gets a lot of people fired if businesses can’t support the increase for all of it’s employees.”

This problem doesn’t exist. It;s what every opponent of raising the minimum wage threatens each time the raise is mentioned, and it’s never come true.

“(2) The DNC supports a hefty raise yet it also supports illegal immigration which explicitly undermines and circumvents the minimum wage. Oxymoron Magnanamus.”

Exactly where do you find that the DNC supports illegal immigration. Actually, it’s the large scale businesses and corp. ag. businesses that want the illegal immigration, both large supporters of Republicans.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #171572

“A single woman that raises her skirt is a unpaid whore why should we pay for her offspring?”

OK - thanks for sharing your position. Sorry to have wasted as much time as I did trying to discuss things with you. I feel sorry for you but I have no interest in debating with your type further.

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #171575

Ah, screw taxes, our kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids can worry about it.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of today is $8,421,354,491,384.01 which means every American man, woman, and child owe about $28,146.85.

Just how much of that debt do you think is held by foreign interests?

Please read “The real cut-and-runners”, By Jared Bernstein:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_real_cut_and_runners

Democrats must vote no on this POS. If the electorate have their heads so firmly buried in the GOP sand they can’t see the truth then so be it.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at July 28, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #171576

Hey Republicans!

Living wages = people not running to the government for assistance.

People not running to the government for assistance = lower funding liabilities.

Lower funding liabilities = less taxes needed!

If you don’t want people begging on the street corner, you give them jobs. If you don’t want them mooching off your tax dollars, give them enough money on the job to pay for all their needs. That simple.

As for the Estate tax? It’s in the interest of more people to keep it than lose it. Those for whom a dead death tax is an interest are essentially people who want, on their deaths, to pay their heirs millions of dollars tax free.

So the message the Republicans want to send is that getting substantial tax free income is privilege reserved for the very rich. Gee thanks. Me? I prefer fulfilling needs to giving privileges.

It’s funny. The Republicans constantly chide us for giving people money they haven’t earned, but they’re all for not taxing unearned income by the children of the dead rich, and historically against us requiring business to pay people the money that’s necessary to get them off government assistance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #171578

KAP
I say again. Military retirement is free. No contribution is ever made to military retirement. Therefore, taxes are appropriate for any monies paid out in military retirement.
Paying taxes on military pay has nothing to do with retirement.
Retired AF after 28 years I know of what I speak.
Vet, if what you say is true, you need to talk to the VA……
Let’s get back to the subject at hand. Liberals have never see a tax that they did not like!

Posted by: ken at July 28, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #171580

“Washington D.C. (District of Criminals)”

Our government as is, consists of nothing less than

organized crime and a corrupt syndicate that will

stop at nothing to remain in power

Pathetic bunch of losers who all belong behind bars

Period!

Posted by: Home Boy at July 28, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #171586

Ken

Free money??

I slogged and fought my way through jungles and rice paddies for two years, getting two purple hearts along the way.

My wife I and I wee married for the last 15 years I was in the Army. Of that time, we spent more than 6 years apart.

That’s six Christmases, six anniversaries and six birthdays spent alone. My son was born during my second tour in Vietnam. He was six months old before I held him in my arms.

During that 15 years, we moved five times. My children had attended six different schools by the time I retired.

I have spent the past 36 years in and out of therapy trying to put Vietnam behind me. I still wake up screaming from nightmares of my friends dead and mangled bodies.

Free??

There isn’t a damn thing free about my military pension. I paid for every penny of it, in blood!!

Posted by: vietnam_vet at July 28, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #171591

Ken
I was USN I think I know to. Military retirement is not free. 16 plus hour days while underway. 6 to 8 months at a crack away from family and friends. I’ll bet a bunch of other retired military would disagree with you. By the way I may be mistaken on this but the money you paid into social security you may never get because I think you have to either choose social security or military retirement pay.

Posted by: KAP at July 28, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #171592

vet
military subject closed. Please join a military blog and see if they can help you.
Military retirement is free in the sense we were discussing. No money is ever paid into military retirement.

Posted by: ken at July 28, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #171593

Ken Strong

Actually very few loose jobs when a minimum wage is raised. The economy is strengthened with the injecton of more spendable income, thereby creating more jobs. This is the opposite of trickle down economics and is much more effective.

Posted by: mark at July 28, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #171598

Ken

YES SIR!!

Posted by: vietnam_vet at July 28, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #171600

I am a retired military member and just to set the record straight, our “retirement” pay has been ruled to be “differred compensation” by SCOTUS about 25 years ago. That is how ex-wives or ex-husbands get on half of it when we divorce.

Oh, by the way I am very much in favor of raising the min wage to something a person can live on. And if your daddy made mucho bucks in his lifetime, what makes you think you are entitled to it with out working for it yourself. Screw it, take all money left when one dies and give it to the Govt. that way we can continue to pay for wars against nations that did us no wrong. All the NeoCons should be in favor of that as your “new world order” lays out your nation building plans.
Michael M..

Posted by: Michael M at July 28, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #171603

Paul,
I wonder if this being election time that both parties havent finally agreed on something. This sounds like a win win for each side no matter which way they vote. If your dem and vote no because of the hilton tax, you win, if you vote yes and let the hilton tax pass you still get minimum wage for your voters. Of course the Waltons Hiltons and a few others finally after spending so much money get whirlwind payoff they are asking for. The repubs get to brag about another tax cut. Oh wait it all falls apart because of the deficit. We all, dem repub and indy’s lose. Unless the extra taxes from the raise in wages compensate for the Hilton Tax. Darn that old scheme to bankrupt the federal government may cause the Hilton tax to fail after all. What irony.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 28, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #171605

“Observer, I haven’t seen any “holes” punched in anything I have written.”

No, you wouldn’t, would you?

“When your kid inherits your assets do you expect the tax man to take his share or will your kid be exempt? “

I have no problem with my heirs paying 15-20%.
Would it make you feel better if we changed the law to include everyone? Fine by me.

“I smell a lot of envy in these posts.”

Yes, we know the talking points. Thanks for repeating them.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #171606

“Like what? helping a mayonnaise spreader make as much as a tradesman? If the fast fooder wants more money let him move up the food chain like the rest of us.”

Perhaps you were unaware that bush redefined fast food hamburger assemblers as “manufacturing jobs”? (true)
Also, what “tradesman” makes only 7.50/hr?
The republican hatred of lower income workers continues to baffle me.
Curious how you treat your waiter when you eat out.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #171608

“Gladys: finally a liberal with some sense. Where did you come from?”

Uh, I dont think a “liberal” would be calling us “democrates”, a standard right wing insult on message boards.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #171610

“We don’t pay state income tax on either one and we shouldn’t have to pay federal taxes, especially on my military pension.”

I don’t disagree. Personally, I think wounded military vets should be exempt from taxes PERIOD. (Kerry included, W and cheney should pay double).
My wife processes claims for the VA so I know firsthand the bullsh*t treatment vets get by our supposedly gratefull country. Another reason I’m against wars of choice.

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #171611

“A mother of too with a husband in Iraq gets enough to live on.”

Yeah, at poverty level.

If she wants more she should marry a yuppie instead of a soldier.

Cause a soldier is less important ??????


” A single woman that raises her skirt is a unpaid whore why should we pay for her offspring?”

Where do they grow people like you?

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #171613

“Where do they grow people like you?”

Kind of a new twist on the chicken / egg question…

Which came first? The mushroom or the … fertilizer?

Posted by: tony at July 28, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #171614

“The economy is strengthened with the injecton of more spendable income, thereby creating more jobs. This is the opposite of trickle down economics and is much more effective.”

EXACTLY!!!
Every extra penny paid to lower level workers gets directly injected back into the economy. Can you say the same for trust fund brats??
Again, why do republicans loathe working class people?

Posted by: Observer at July 28, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #171615

“The republican hatred of lower income workers continues to baffle me.”

Observer,

What baffles me is that some low income workers are republicans.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 28, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #171616

Hey I got great idea, lets keep the estate tax or even raise it and then, let all the service men and veterans pay no taxes at all. Sounds fair to me for having them protect this country, now doesn’t

Posted by: Willy G. at July 28, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #171617

I am sorry I forgot to say the servicemen and women and veterans.

Posted by: Willy G. at July 28, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #171619

Hear, Hear!! Observer.

Technically,though W is a vet.

If you want a livable wage in this country, stop the exporting jobs tax breaks and prosecute employers that hire illegals.
The inheritance tax issue is the definition of a special interest group. Vote against giving tax breaks to the wealthy. They should be willing to pay for the police and courts keeping us poor folk from climbing their estate walls,killing them and taking their money.

Posted by: gergle at July 28, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #171620

WSilly G
Truely a good idea. Maybe they can put that into this bill and make everyone happy.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 28, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #171626

This is real amazing to me. How do Republicans do it? They get people who are not wealthy and who will not benefit from the rollback of the estate tax, to defend it.

How many people on this blog defending the estae tax will benefit from it. They have the average joe defending tax cuts for the rich.

You have to admit, they have put together a pretty amazing political machine. Filled with ideology, imagery, Patriotism, religious values, misinformation and with policies that screw the average american and then they get you to support it. Amazing!

The book “Whats the matter with Kansas says it all”

Posted by: Stefano at July 28, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #171632

Hmm, family farms?

NAFTA caused the loss of 38,000 US family farms. Hardly what I’d call “taking care of the little guy”.

Posted by: Ynot at July 29, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #171639

Hmmmm, 11:40 PM on a Friday Night and I’m watching this unfold on C-Span.

WE can’t let this die from the headlines before November!

I know this will be replayed on C-Span and I strongly recommend checking your tv schedules so you can record this. Maybe even send a copy to every Republican’t you know and ask them how they can hold their heads up.

I might have to double up on my blood pressure meds.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #171647

“This is real amazing to me. How do Republicans do it? They get people who are not wealthy and who will not benefit from the rollback of the estate tax, to defend it.

How many people on this blog defending the estae tax will benefit from it. They have the average joe defending tax cuts for the rich.”

Maybe it’s because it’s the RIGHT thing to do. Maybe it has to do with the right to own property. or maybe it’s because we were taught to not take things that don’t belong to us and someone else’s property don’t belong to us.

Posted by: tomd at July 29, 2006 1:48 AM
Comment #171649

—-KAP—-I think you are treading on very thin ice,
by Troll-ing- Vets. some topics right or wrong are
better left alone, if you get my drift!

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 1:55 AM
Comment #171654

Tomd,
Were you also taught to fight for an Aristocracy instead of a Meritocracy for our Country?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #171655

—- Very strange, speaking of tax cuts. The two largest oil Co. posted first quarter earning 14-13
Billion, over their last highest highestBBBBs$
The Government still pays these Co$. millions
of dollars every year to help them in new discoveries of oil. Today Congress wants to bard er
a living wage for the least paid people in this Country, after the richest people 2% got a tax break. Congress gave themselves $3.600.00 raise this
year. The poorest people have not had a raise for
ten years! An do not say the Minimum of $300.00 was advanced an implied as a tax break had to be
repaid the following year. I am beginning to see
why most critical thinkers believe 80% of our population ain’t to smart.

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #171656

Why with this Country running such a deficit should any tax be cut now? Anyone supporting the Paris Hilton Tax please explain the wisdom and timimg of this proposed tax cut. The repubs have destroyed the budget already. Why the estate tax and why now? What do you think will trickle down on us should this tax cut take place?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 29, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #171659

——I would like to think any person or family who
inherits a home should not pay taxes on that home
unless you sell that house or property, 10% won’t
hurt anyone. Same goes for a Business. This would be a compromise but the powers to be will
never give anything to anyone without strings.

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 2:45 AM
Comment #171660

—-j2t2—-Our Country needs a massive audit ASAP to
first determine where all the money is going, then
decide what options are available.

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 2:54 AM
Comment #171661

“… dont think a “liberal” would be calling us “democrates”, a standard right wing insult on message boards.”

Sorry Observer…. I’m a Democrat and proud of it! I don’t lean too far left and as a woman could never lean right.

Posted by: Gladys at July 29, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #171671

I enjoyed your post on Republican Blackmail so much, I posted it on my blog. Hope you don’t mind.

Posted by: Roger at July 29, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #171681

tomd

I see you are a reverse Robin Hood. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Why is it that you fight for the rich and not for the poor and working class?

There are no Republican policies to deal with the 40 million uninsured americans. We have the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized western world, and 14 million people in poverty. And you are concerned with tax cuts for the rich. They have you suckered in to do their dirty work. Fighting for the rich and and screw everyone else.

“Compassionate Conservativism” is dead. It is called selfishness.

This is a great example of how conservative ideology is screwed up. And they have people buying into it.

Posted by: Stefano at July 29, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #171682

Vietnam-vet, glad you set Observer straight.

Ken military retirement is not free. I paid income tax while in along with all the other taxes, while in the Army, and I pay taxes on my retirement so pray tell how do you think that it is free? Also have you ever served, or did you live off of mommy and daddy. Did you know I can still be called back to duty until I am 60yrs old. So the government still has it’s hand in my pocket and on my ba**s and take me away but this time it would be to jail because Bush can kiss my ass. Unlike you when you retire you can probably go play golf or whatever.

Posted by: KT at July 29, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #171689

KT -

If I read Kens post right, I think he was simply stating that the pension is a benefit that you do not pay taxes on until you recieve your retirement benefits - so that you do not pay taxes twice for that money. That’s all. I never got the idea that he suggested that you got “free” or underserved money.

Personally, I think the military should be paid more, spend no out of pocket money for benefits… better schools for the kids… better support for spouses (daycare, etc.) & only when no VETs are homeless can we say that we truly support the military.

1/3 of all homeless Americans are military vets.

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #171690

Hi Tony, on Ken’s remark it is not how I took it. Military retirement is not like a 401K or an IRA. You don’t put funds into an account and pay when you withdraw the money. It is more like the old company supplied retirement(which are quickly going the way of the dodo), where when you retire, you get x-amount a month, from the company. But I will drop this line and get back to the original.
I see that the House passed the minumn wage bill, but have not read it yet to see if the estate tax is in it or not.

Posted by: KT at July 29, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #171693

KT

The estate tax was in it. No taxes on the first 5.8 million $ I believe.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #171695

KT

Not expected to pass the Senate.

Posted by: mark at July 29, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #171700

“tomd

I see you are a reverse Robin Hood. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. Why is it that you fight for the rich and not for the poor and working class?”

How do you come up with that bullshit? I resent being called a thief. I have worked for everything I have and because I want people to be able to keep and control the fruits of their labor you call me a thief? PLEASE EXPLAIN

Posted by: tomd at July 29, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #171701

The correct argument we often hear from the right that welfare payments actually hurt the poor by dicourageing personal incentive , growth and honest work also applies to inheritance. It is the SAME argument.

Posted by: BillS at July 29, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #171705

tomd. There is already an exemption for something like 5 million $. If someone has more than that it is not “the fruits of their labor”. It is the fruits of other peoples labor they managed to glom onto.
I like the way gergle put it but Teddy Rosevelt put it more politly’ “Without the minstrations of the constabulary the wealthy would not be able to sleep in their own beds.” They should pay more for these services.
All over the world throughout history when large estates are not broken up gradually they are sooner or later broken up rapidly,often with great violence. Do you really think that will not happen here? If so you are wrong. It is more likely here than in many places. Remember we are Americans. Revolution is our birthright. The bomb,the gallows,the bullet in the night are as much part of our legacy as the cheeseburger.

Posted by: BillS at July 29, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #171706

“Why is it that you fight for the rich and not for the poor and working class?”

Maybe we should all work for what is right. If I work and earn my money, then I should be able to control it.

“There are no Republican policies to deal with the 40 million uninsured americans.”

The last time I went to an emergency room there were at least 30 people ahead of me and probably half didn’t have health insurance. None were turned away…In fact there are posters everywhere in the emergency room that states if a hospital receives federal money they can’t turn anyone away for lack of money. Seems to be better insurance than I have. I still have to pay a deductible and 20%.

“and 14 million people in poverty.”

We will always have people in poverty mainly because the threshold for poverty keeps raising. The lowesr wage earners will always be considered to be in poverty.

You speak of compassion but compassion is an emotion. Fortunately, justice is blind and compassion should have nothing to do with laws.

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the FAIRTAX proposal? Other than not punishing republicans it sounds like the best plan around.

Posted by: Tom D. at July 29, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #171719

I thought the REP agrue against government assistance was “get a job!”

OK, so shouldn’t someone with a job be able to live without government assitance? It comes down to this… if Wal-Mart does not pay enough for it’s workforce to cover basic needs, then should we pay to cover them so that Wal-Mart can make more money? (BTW - WalMart has over 600,000 employee who are on government assitance - 46% of it’s workforce.) Why use tax dollars to cover what WalMart should cover? How is requiring a fulltime person to make at least $13k a year a bad thing?

Posted by: tony at July 29, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #171738

Tom D

Yes - It is your money, your tax dollars and you have a right through your representative to how it is spent. But I question the choices you make with your money and your priorities.

You want to work for what is right. That is a personal virtual. You feel keeping the wealthy wealthy is a nobler virtual than helping people. Compassion is not an emotion, it is a virtue. It is the essence of being human. It is essential to our survival. Laws should be made with compassion.

So I gather you agree with me that there is no such thing as “compassionate conservative”.

You talk about what is right, most conservatives speak of morality and doing what is right. But they lack compassion and therefore have no conscience. There is a disconnect between your values and morals and the reality and impact they have on people.

You choose the wealthy over the poor and working middle class. You rationalize it by saying there “will be poor always”. This view absolves you of any responsibility for your fellow man.

Getting free health care in an emergency room is not health care. It is emergency survival. First of all it is not all free and you speculating the people you saw were uninsured. They still get invoiced for their treatment and stay. And if they do not have health insurance, then they get billed for the full un-discounted rate. In other words, your insurance company gets billed at a pre-negotiated discounted rate. You with health insurance pays a lower rate than someone without health insurance. The poor and uninsured get screwed again.

Now when they get billed and cannot afford it, They have to negotiate with hospital and/or apply for charity. And if that dosen’t work, it is more difficult to declare bankruptcy becasue the laws were changed to make it more difficult. Protect the banks and business - the wealthy at the expense of the poor. The poor and uninsured get screwed again.

Many times the uninsured skip seeing a doctor for aliments becasue they cannot afford it. It is not until their medical problem gets worse that they go to an emergency room. And treatment becomes more expensive. The uninsured do not have a family phyisican, do not get regular checkups, do not engage in preventive medicine. And as a result, as I previously mentioned, we have the highest rate of infant mortality in the Industrialized western world. Which again effect the poor and uninsured.

I know all this because I do work with the United Way and I see this.

So is this the national health care system you support? You would choose to give the money to the rich, I choose to use the money to improve people’s lives. It is my tax dollars too. This is my choice.

Posted by: Stefano at July 29, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #171741

jc,

What the hell is a single women doing with 2 kids anyway? chanches are she was never married. So why should I pay more for underpants at walmart because she couldn’t keep her skirt down.
This is one of the most despicable, heartless comments I have ever seen here. Your parents must be so proud of raising such a caring child.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 29, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #171742

One of the problems with this debate is that we are not talking about the same thing. Ls are talking about money while Cs are talking about wealth. And what is the definition of “rich”?

I’m the father of two children, neither working. I have enough income from stocks, bonds and other investments that I can afford to support them. When I die I’ll leave approximatelys $15M to them in the form of an investment portfolio with about 15% cash, 70% stocks and 15% in real estate investments.

I’m the father of two children, both of whom work in my bakery business. We’re a small business, we work very long hours, pay lots of taxes and comply with many regulations. We employ 5 people, two of whom are minimum wage, part timers in high school. When I die I’ll leave approximately $15M to my children in the form of the building the business is in, office equipment, delivery trucks, kitchen equipment and about $1500 in cash after current liabilities are paid.

I’m the father of two children, both of whom are grown and have families of their own. One lives in Florida the other in LA. Over the years I have purchased several rental properties and the income from them, about $50K per year, supports me in my retirement. When I die I’ll leave approximately $1M to my children in the form of four rental properties in the small community of Payson, AZ.

I’m the father of two children, one of them a doctor living in NY the other a homemaker living with her husband, an auto mechanic, and her three small children in a two bedroom rental not far from me. I have a home on about 3/4 of an acre in Costa Mesa that I bought for $35K dollars many, many years ago. I don’t have any other assets worth mentioning, but because my home is a nice property in a popular area, it has appreciated greatly. When I die I’ll leave about $1M to my children. The doctor is doing just fine but I’d like to leave my house to my daughter. It’s just perfect for a growing family.

So, who’s rich here? Is the estate tax equally fair in all four situations? How will the children pay the tax? Will the assets actually pass to the children?

I propose to you that the real problem with the estate tax is that it’s a “one size fits none” law that by itself creates inequities. Maybe the question isn’t to keep or get rid of the tax, but how to restructure it so that it’s not a punishment.

Posted by: JimA at July 29, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #171745

Tom D. Yes people without coverage do go to the emergency room.They get sick or injured also. When they do it is often after their injury or illness has become serious. This is the most expensive type of healthcare there is. Prevention and early treatment are far more efficient and humane. This is also the reason that you and I wind up paying 12 $ for a cotton ball or 200$ for a plastic bedpan. It is to cover the uninsured. Is this fair? I get my coverage through my employer. They have to compete with other employers that do not cover their employees. This means myself and the people I work for are subsidizing the competion that gets away with acting irresponsibly toward their workers. Is that fair? A more eguitable way would be for every employer to provide coverage. This would lower the cost for the employers that already cover their workers. An even better way is single payer. Everybody has access. Just the savings from paperwork reduction alone would be enough to cover the uninsured. Spare me the idealogical shrieks. Do not bother vomiting up the propaganda you have been fed.It works just fine in every other industrial country in the world. If our government was not so corrupted by money we would have had it years ago. Rich people do not like it because they just hate taking turns. Those people ahead of you at the emergency room were put there by ripoff insurance companies and dirtbag employers.

Posted by: BillS at July 29, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #171757

“gladys: A mother of too with a husband in Iraq gets enough to live on. If she wants more she should marry a yuppie instead of a soldier. A single woman that raises her skirt is a unpaid whore why should we pay for her offspring?

Posted by: jc at July 28, 2006 08:45 PM”

JC;

Because she is a human being, (unlike YOU)!

Does anyone else here, need any more reasons to hate Republicians?

Since when is it a base requiorment that a Republician must not only be heartless, but unconscienable and inhuman as well?

We can spend 2 BILLION a week in Iraq, gutting that country, murdering it’s people, and killing thousands of our own young men and women, but let a “welfare mother” need any help????? God forbid! After all, Paris Hilton could use another boob job!

THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK!

Maybe that’s why they are less than 35% in the polls. But, then, oh yea. They don’t pay any attention to the polls anyway, do they? Good thing for us come next November!

And, speaking of next November, we’ll just see how many fast food workers can vote. That is those who are left, who still can get jobs, that have not been shipped over-seas, or have been out-sourced by illegals, or not been terminated due to businesses relocating to other countries, or cut back, because of legal banking in the Cayman’s, to avoid US business taxes.

Maybe we’ll just see if all those welfare bum’s (that have to resort to working at Wal-Mart part time), can wipe the drool off their lips long enough to show up at the polls, and vote… ?

Posted by: PlayNice at July 29, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #171760

This was far from the first time the Republican’t House pulled off a Friday night coup under the cover of darkness:

At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in March, 2003 the House cut veterans benefits by three votes.

At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, 2003 the House slashed education and health care by five votes.

At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, 2003 the House passed the Leave No Millionaire Behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes.

At 2:33 a.m. on a Friday in June, 2003 the House passed the Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote.

At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, 2003 the House eviscerated Head Start by one vote.

And then, after returning from summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, 2003 the House voted $87 billion for Iraq.

Always in the middle of the night. Always after the press had passed their deadlines. Always after the American people had turned off the news and gone to bed.

What did the public see? At best, Americans read a small story with a brief explanation of the bill and the vote count in Saturday’s papers.

I found these examples at:
http://democrats.house.gov/news/librarydetail.cfm?library_content_id=62

But those are only a few examples.

It’s important to remember that only about one month ago House Republicans blocked a vote to raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour over two years.

http://democrats.house.gov/news/librarydetail.cfm?library_content_id=800

Regardless of how anyone of us views the Estate Tax debate, the Republicant’s attempt to pass this off as “The Minimum Wage Increase Bill” is equivalent to putting lipstick on a pig.

More approriately it might be compared to putting lipstick on an elephant. I plan to write a “letter to the editor” of all my area newspapers to expose this big fat hog for just what it is, and I’d hope that a few others might do likewise.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 29, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #171770

Thanks guys. Everyone understands except a very bitter KT. My service covered 28 years and two wars.
Go bash bush, but not me!
PS KT you cannot be recalled if you are disabled

Posted by: ken at July 29, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #171789

I hear a lot of arguments between liberals and conservatives. But a great many of you seemed to have missed my main point:

Republicans work for the rich, while Democrats work for the non-rich. And Republicans are willing to forget about their “values” in order to help the rich.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 29, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #171790

As far as the argument to “get a job” directed at those on welfare, what is so terrible about that? Early in life I was on government assistance for a short time, however my own pride and work ethic made it impossible for me to stay long. I broke my back, pulled myself up by the bootstraps and got me and my family off of the welfare rolls. And to nip any naysayers in the bud, I am a single parent with a limited budget and no I don’t get child support or anything else other than my paycheck. So I do know what all those poor single moms are going through. Just because I am a single father makes no difference. Anybody can do it, you just have to want it and be willing to work hard for it, it’s called the “American Way”. The problem is that the the liberal ideal of social entitlement makes it acceptable to not do the honorable thing and provide for yourself. As far as Walmart not providing for its own employees (46% on gov’t assistance), quit and go to work at Sears. Eventually the market will pressure walmart to change it’s practices when it can’t bring in employees (by the way, that’s happening already, Walmart is experiencing tremendous turnover rates and can’t keep employees). Don’t expect the government to dictate benefits, that’s what capitalism is all about. That is the role of the company, not the government, it’s called competition in the marketplace. We seem to be slipping down a steep slope toward socialism when the government begins dictating so many aspects of our lives.
I say raise the minimum wage, it will help the poorest get off the welfare rolls, but if your goal truly is to get people off welfare there needs to be massive reform on the welfare front. Minimum wage is a very small part of that equation and raising minimum wage alone is like pissing on a forest fire. That is a topic for a whole different discussion.
I also have to admit that although I am quite conservative on many domestic and economic issues the estate tax makes sense. I disagree with combining the two on one bill, they are very seperate issues that need to be dealt with independant of one another.

Posted by: Sheldon at July 29, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #171794

BillS,

“Do not bother vomiting up the propaganda you have been fed.It works just fine in every other industrial country in the world. If our government was not so corrupted by money we would have had it years ago.”

Since anything I say will be considered “properganda” I have been fed, I guess you and I have nothing else to say. BTW I’m not a Republican.

Posted by: tomd at July 29, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #171797

So I gather you agree with me that there is no such thing as “compassionate conservative”.

I am always amazed at how the debates on the issues constantly turn to statements like this, how each party is the “party of hate”, this is what has made our government so corrupt and why partisan politics are as deep rooted as they are. Let’s try to discuss issues instead of bashing each other. I read republican blogs and democratic blogs all the time to try and understand the whole issue. both parties are equally corrupt, equally self serving and equally as guilty of the mud slinging. Get over it already and have an actual debate without reverting to grade school tactics!

Posted by: Sheldon at July 29, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #171799

And by the way, just because Leiberman is a democrat with some conservative ideals or McCain is a republican who happens to disagree with the direction the administration is going in certain aspects does not make them evil, or traitors. They should serve as a model for what we want, politicians who don’t bow down to party policy. Both parties have definate flaws and wonderful ideas and policies, that’s right, BOTH parties. Debate the issues and choose what is right for the people, based on what is actually right and not on what the party leadership dictates.

Posted by: Sheldon at July 29, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #171802

Sheldon,

There is nothing wrong with the attitude of “go get a job, if you are on welfare”.

However, there is a great deal wrong with a company that pockets multi-million $ profits, off of the backs of their employees, that still have to be on welfare, because they are working, and earning money, but are still below the poverty line, and can’t make a living wage. (Then blaming the person on welfare, for his/her own fate.)

That my friend, is “Republician politics”, (as usual), and there is a great deal wrong with that!

You can’t win a card game, against a stacked hand! (Then have the one that cheated say, “if you couldn’t afford to loose, then you should have stayed out of the game”. No fair, no fair, you need to call the game on account of bs).

Posted by: PlayNice at July 29, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #171815

Stefano,
“But I question the choices you make with your money and your priorities.”

You admit it is my money and then you question my choices and priorities. Do you think everyone should share your choices and priorities or just me?

“You choose the wealthy over the poor and working middle class. You rationalize it by saying there “will be poor always”. This view absolves you of any responsibility for your fellow man.”

I choose me and my family. You are the one who mentioned the millions in poverty. I only pointed out that poverty is on a sliding scale and we will always have those among us who are below the poverty line. That absolves me or you from nothing. What are you doing about the poverty level other than trying to get me and others to pay more?

This response has been long enough but I’m still waiting for an explanation of why YOU CALLED ME A THIEF.



Posted by: Tom D. at July 29, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #171822

“Does anyone else here, need any more reasons to hate Republicians?”

(LOL) Playnice, let me remind you of Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy. I become quite nauseiated when one party attempts to act as if they are more noble than the other. Did I mention the honorable Cynthia McKinney?

Do I need any more reasons to hate both parties?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 29, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #171837

—-curmudgeon—-Why is it that you hate so often
an so much, You do not seem like a person who
might be considered a hate monger?

Posted by: DAVID at July 29, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #171849

curmudgeon,

seams like you can always find reasons to hate any liberal. But, if you actually want to help and support those in society who are the wealthest, at the expense of those in society who are the poorest, then your values are sque’d.

If you agree with KC, that all unmarried women on welfare with two kids are an “unpaid whore”, then there is seriously something wrong with you, and I’m not just talking about your politics.

Posted by: PlayNice at July 29, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #171957

KansasDem:

Your l:l8 post was excellent. Listing all the things that go bump in the night is quite a damning indictment of Republican tactics. Thanks for sharing it.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 12:41 AM
Comment #171965

Well, wording is everything and this comes from CNN which I believe the Neo-Cons love to portray as the “communist news network”:

“the minimum wage initiative was likely to die at the hands of Democrats opposed to the costly estate tax cuts.”

You see, this is not being called the “Estate Tax Bill” which it should have been. It’s being called the “Minimum Wage Increase Bill” and we Democrats will vote it down! I was disappointed when I saw that something like 23 or 24 Democrats voted for this POS in the House last night.

The so-called Liberal MSM seems pretty damn conservative to me right now. The only way to get the truth out is to write some “letters to the editor”. We need to hit the local media with this!

Every one of us Democrats that have a House or Senate seat up for election this year need to let our electorate know what’s really going on. We must hold every seat we already have and we must gain every seat we can.

Anyone of us that doesn’t try our best is basically giving Bush & Co. a big wet kiss.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 30, 2006 1:59 AM
Comment #171966

“If you agree with KC, that all unmarried women on welfare with two kids are an “unpaid whore”, then there is seriously something wrong with you, and I’m not just talking about your politics.”

PlayNice,

You’re right of course. I’ve nearly bitten my tongue off to keep from further derailing Paul’s article but I simply must say it takes two “whores” to make a baby! One of each sex. My solution to that is simple and it also solves the abortion debate.

Since about 99% of vasectomies are reversable let’s simply begin performing vasectomies on all male children at age 12 and not let them get it reversed until they’ve shown true maturity and financial responsibility.

True equality anyone? I know a really good Urologist.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 30, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #171976

Let’s look at this a little closer with some logic. It doesn’t matter who is calling for a minimum wage increase: it does not help the employee. Anytime the government forces business to spend more money on things the workers call rights, the employee will lose! The Feds have been doing this for years especially under less conservative Presidents. The military is streamlined or cut when it cannot afford the burden of additional employees, which forces the military to do more with less. Business are forced to do the same when it cannot afford the additional burden of employees. There is a cry when it is done to civilians; however, there is utter silence when it affects the military community. The fight for wage increases is a smoke and mirrors. This is just one way the politicians have found to get people emotionally charged and to justify their positions!!! Don’t be duked, bam boozled, or tricked.

Adelious, in Enid Oklhoma

Posted by: Adelious at July 30, 2006 3:36 AM
Comment #171990

Adelious -

The minimum wage should be just that - the minimum people get paid for working. It should be set the minimum amount for people to live off of. If you take inflation into consideration, then bumping the amount up to $7+ an hour makes sense. It’s been 10 years since the last increase.

I also have no issue with discussing this issue openly, and then voting on it as a nation. But that’s not what we have. We have to either support both the increase in minimum wage and the roll back of the estate tas, or vote gainst both of them. It’s a stupid political obfuscation, and it sucks. It’s a political game being played for the sole benefit of those in power, and the citizens are the ones who end up loosing.

It’s crap, and this Nov - WE NEED TO ALL CLEAN HOUSE (ie, Congress.)

Posted by: tony at July 30, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #172003

Kansas Dem,

I’ll drink to that! Great suggestion, however it’s still not politically correct in this country to blame the male for anything, so I don’t think women would let their little male darlings go thru that. And, asking men to be as responsible for raising their little “nights worth of passion”, like we expect females to do, doesn’t seam likely either. So, what you gonna do?

What really bothers me though, about this sort of statement is the morality “blame game”, here. How does KC know the paticular circumstances of said woman? Is she a victim of rape? Incest? Who is to say that she is automatacally the “whore”? It’s the same kind of moral judgment that the right wing is infamous for. And I hate it! Who are they to “judge” another? (Let him without sin……whatever).

Adelious,

Most busisnesses that are truly affected by the minimum wage are large business, multi-level, multi-national, huge corporate interests that are already making multi-million dollar profits off of their underpaid employees already. Any mimimum wage bill that raises wages for the worker, has a far more chance of cutting into those billion $ profits and give the worker a fair and living wage; than it does in stalling employment or haulting jobs. There are studys that have proven this. Every time that this argument has been made, that jobs will suffer if the minimum wage is raised, it has been proven wrong.

Most small employers have to be competitive. They have to operate in the real world. They are already paying over minimum wage anyway. Most states that have a minimum wage, that wage is higher than the national wage, anyway. Why? Because people can’t live on $5.25 per hour! Can you? All $5 an hour does, is to keep people in poverty. If an employer can not pay over $5 an hour, maybe that business shouldn’t be in business, anyway.

Believe me, the only thing that increasing the national minimum wage will do, is to stimulate the economy. The only thing the minimum wage act would do is to help the poorest of the poor, in this country.

In my state the minium wage has been raised from $6.90 to $7.15 per hour. It won’t effect anyone in my state at all. So, why am I for raising the national minimum wage? Because it’s not for me. It’s for those Americans that still are working in “vertual slavery”.

Do you think that my $9.75 per hour hurts my employer? Obviously not, or I wouldn’t be employed. Do you think that my husbands $15 per hour job hurts his employer? No. They are still looking for qualified people that will do his job, and if they could find someone that they could train and work for $5 an hour, don’t you think that they would?

Come on people, when you live in a country that is the richest country in the world, and you encourage large businesses to manufacture over-seas, then import their products back to this counrty to sell to us, at a over-seas labor cost of .33 per hour, and you pay the sales employee here in the US $5-$6 per hour (part time), to peddle this stuff?

WHO IS IT, THAT REALLY LOOSES HERE???

All,

Seams like the Republicians won again! Let’s face it, they are true rats!

Posted by: PlayNice at July 30, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #172022

KansasDem and Playnice - Love the post! Kansas, that’s such a good idea, except instead of doing it at 12, maybe we should do it first thing, just after birth, when they’re getting circumcised. Over and done with - and they won’t remember a thing!!!

Posted by: Lisa C. at July 30, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #172069

Playnice,

Too bad you can’t live up to that moniker. Trying catching up…..I was simply playing on your hate reference to Republicans. You seem to have the hate issue. Your “unpaid whore” comment is nothing more than smear tactics. Not sure how you linked me with that or republicans.

You seem to be one of those democrats who belives when (if) your party gets power you guys will fix everything. Simply calling you out, dems are no better than reps and when one really examines the political landscape we find that they are more similar than different. Niether party will go far to solve our nations ills….I’ve been around long enough to figure that out. Party loyalist….aarrgghh.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 30, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #172082

Here’s a recent release on what took place…..lengthy (sorry), but interesting…

Subject: Don’t Hold Our Minimum Wage Increase For RANSOM


CALL YOUR SENATORS TOLL-FREE AT 888-355-3588 OR 800-828-0498

ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/wright/pnum435.php

“It used to be that after the wealthy and powerful had their banquets, whatever scraps and crumbs might be left over would fall to the dogs. And in the House of Representatives late Friday night and into wee hours of Saturday morning it was still just that way. The bill they were trying to jam through on the last day before their recess, H.R. 5970, was entitled “Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act”, yet another shameless budget busting giveaway to those precious few who least need it, which had already been rejected time and time again by the Senate.

But their Republican co-conspirators in the Senate had hatched an evil plot overnight. You knew there had to be something suspicious going on because most of the day passed and the House still had not come into session. What they decided to pull was to try to grease this pig of bill through by tagging on a crippled version of the long overdue minimum wage increase, for which there WAS popular support, as if all of a sudden Republicans were in favor of the minimum wage increase they had previously blocked at every juncture for 10 years.

Well we can read the title of the bill ourselves [the actual text is still not available online], and an increase of the minimum wage is mentioned NOWHERE in it as its purpose. The Democrats had to scramble to even read the thing, dumped as it was in their laps literally just before the Republicans tried to ram a vote through on it. And come to find out that if enacted as written many workers would actually see a REDUCTION in their wages. Oh, and they threw in a bunch of other stuff the Republicans had been dragging their hooves on too that really needed to be passed.

At the end of the day the bill would do infinitely more harm than good, saddling the rest of us with 800 billion dollars in additional debt so that the excessively rich could get theirs first. And of course the clincher was that when the Democrats called a vote on restructuring the bill to strip out the estate tax giveaway only, the result was a mean-spirited near party line vote. So much for Republicans in favor of raising the minimum wage. All they EVER wanted to do was hold it for ransom.

In the 10 years since the minimum wage was passed, members of Congress have voted nine times to raise their pay, the ninth pay hike is set to fatten their wallets to $165,200 a year, starting Jan. 1. House Republican leaders have refusing to hold a straight up or down vote on a bill by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) to raise the minimum wage to .25 an hour. Democrats have been fighting to force a vote on the minimum wage bill without any crippling amendments, or now any more outrageous budget killers. In the Senate, Republican leaders recently led the fight to defeat a similar bill from Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Calif.) by using parliamentary rules that required 60 votes to win. The bill won a majority, 52-46, but fell short of the 60-vote threshold.

We’ve waited nine long years for OUR next pay raise, while Congress has raised its own salary every year. We can wait another 3 months to kick out enough of these hypocrites to get a real Congress working again in the interests of the people.”


Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.usalone.com/in.htm


Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 30, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #172098

——Aldelious in Enid Oklahoma. You live in a beautiful state with thousands of acres of green fields, sitting on that reddish soil an those
Large blusterous clouds flying past, an many
small Towns an Cities. Oklahoma does not have the same problems as do the big cities of other states.
Many more folks in Oklahoma share an divide
an pass on to the next generation, that’s about togetherness that most large city dwellers can no
longer afford, just because the costs of living in those cities has risen so much. I can not fault
your political beliefs, because your way of life in Oklahoma is much different. The people in large Cities an most States have to increase their
wages, just to survive the inflated coasts of the
past few years.

Posted by: DAVID at July 30, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #172116

Cumudgeon—

I was refering to jc’s post of July 28th, 08:45PM. When JC wrote: “A single woman that raises her skirt is a unpaid whore, why should we pay for her offspring?”

(This is my post that you were responding to).

I don’t know about you, but I find that, an exclusive Republician attitude. I should know. I am a Democrat, that used to be a Republician until that became the Republician attitude in 1992. My best friend and my own son are Republicians. This is their attitude. This is not my attitude. Both my friend and my son claim to be “Christians”. Yet this is decidedly a very un-christian attitude, also. Why? Because most real Christians, do not jump to conclusion about others “morality” (“Do not judge others, lest ye be judged like-wise”). This is also an attitude that is not that common amoung Democrats. Democrats usually care about other people. I care about the minimum wage, not because it effects me personally, but because it causes hardships to others. Mostly the very poorest in our society.

The remark about the “unpaid whore” was not aimed at you, it was just a reference back to the post that you were responding to. However, I meant what I said. If your politics are in agreement with JC, then you have a lot more against you, in your life, than your political affiliation.

You say that there is not much difference in a Democrat and a Republician. I don’t see it that way. Even Republicians of old used to care about people. (I don’t believe that the crys for help from hurricane victims —Katrina— would have gone unheeded during Carters administration, Kenedy’s or even Regan’s, for that matter).

I believe that Republicans used to care about people, and not just to get votes, but they really, really cared about people. People’s rights to privacy, and other rights. People’s rights to earn a living, and being fiscally responsibly in government spending. In 1992, that all changed. If you can not see the difference, (in the Republicians of old, and the Republicians of today); how mean spirited they are, how mean spirited they have become, how un-caring about others they have become? Then I can’t explain it to you.

But JC’s remark about the “unpaid whore” still stands. That attitude is exclusively a Rep. attitude and not a Dem. attitude. It seams to have sprang it’s ugly little head along with the right-wing moral majority influence. I find it offensive. I find it just plain wrong, on so many fronts. And, I find it a great deal different than the average Democrats attitude or beliefs. I believe that there is a difference, a great big difference indeed!

Posted by: PlayNice at July 30, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #172149

Playnice:

“I believe that Republicans used to care about people, and not just to get votes, but they really, really cared about people. “

I agree with you, Playnice. I remember the George Romneys’, the Nelson Rockerfellers, Everett Dirksons, the Margaret Chase Smiths, and wonder when the GOP lost it’s soul in some Kansas City back alley.

And I even agree about your assessment of Reagan in regards to Katrina and New Orleans. I always considered Reagan to be a light-weight and wrong on a myriad of issues—but he never would have been caught dead letting a great American city writhe in agony.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #172152

—-PlayNice— A very nice thoughtful post, I respect the moral character you have shown here, an
seldom found in most. It is truly amazing what
people say an do when they can hide themselves
behind a screen an lash out others then expect to
be respected an then try making it seem as though
you made them do it. Who knows, maybe some of your
moral character wil rub off on others. DAVID

Posted by: DAVID at July 30, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #172153

—-Tim Crow—I am amazed to see two posts together
with heart felt feeling being shown, an I being
being a recipient before spinners get between the two of you an PlayNice

Posted by: DAVID at July 30, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #172255

Enough about weighing the Rights and Wrongs/Pros and Cons of the ‘Estate Tax’!
The Minimum Wage and The Estate Tax are Two different Issues and I see No reason that they shouldn’t be Voted on as such!
Will someone please answer me why this can’t be done!’Partisan manipulation’ is obviously in play here,as it always is around Election time and it is a shame and an Insult to the common Layman!
As is so prominently on display here:’Self Gain and Greed’ are still the Prerequisite to being a Politician it seems.Unfortunatly, that is at the cost of the common American!It’s Sad and as an American Vet it makes me feel Ashamed!
JCN:July 31,2006

Posted by: JCN at July 31, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #172264

“You say that there is not much difference in a Democrat and a Republician. I don’t see it that way. Even Republicians of old used to care about people.”

Playnice,

Enough with the unpaid whore comment. Let me say up front, I support neither party, I try to vote individual….thats the best I can hope for. The fact you attempt to claim democrats care more about people while republicans do not is ludicrious. Should I assume all dems have foot-n-mouth disease since Dean does?

Are you referring to the dem in Alabama who attempted to frame his opponent with a hooker? He sure did not care about people, he cared about votes. This is my point. I believe you are referring to the the dem party of FDR, those days are long gone.

Both parties are quite a like but their methodologie MAY differ. Reps claim to care about people and rather than taking the hand out route they go the training route. Dems want to provide services with essentially no accountability.

The system is being abused by individuals in exponential numbers. Do the dems care?
What will work is a merging of the two methodologies. Providing social services with MUCH MORE accountability.
I mean….why work if Uncle Sam will take care of you? Multitudes of folks quite able to work are abusing the SS system. I believe in hard work and accountability while taking care of those who REALLY need help.

Your judging of a whole group of people is decietful and close minded. The fact you do not agree with someone’s methodology does not necessarily mean they do not care about the poor folks. I know as you stated “You hate Republicans” so what is next, you hate Evangelicals because they vote Republican?

This is the problem with party loyalty. They refuse to see what the other side is bringing to the table. We wonder why hate and wars abound in our societies?

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 31, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #172731

Curmudgeon,

I have seen what “the other side is bringing to the table”. I’ve seen it for 5 and 1/2 years now. If you want to see it, (in it’s true light), I suggest you read John Dean’s new book:

Conservatives without conscience.

If you can see the right-wing thru John Dean’s eyes, then we democrats & liberals….are the farthest point of light, from.

It’s not hard to distinguish the difference between the Dem. and the Rep. platforms. One is against the “people” (people will suffer from), and the other is in favor of the “people”, (people will benifit from).

It’s not exactly rocket science.

And, if your going to squak about walfare programs “without accountability”, then you should be equally miffed, about big business runing amuck, without oversight. (ex.)

Practical point: Are you happy paying $3 per gallon for gas? Do you really think that this is spuring the “economy”? I guess that this is why we were floundering so under Clinton.

Please.

Posted by: PlayNice at August 2, 2006 2:36 AM
Comment #304057

I am sick and tired of the dirt-bag democrats and all they stand for. They are the doing everything humanly possible to destroy this country. This president has done in a year and a half what the democrat party has been trying to do for 70 years and that is destroy this country.

Posted by: Doc at July 21, 2010 7:24 PM
Post a comment