America is already running record deficets.  Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster in the history of our country.
Yet the Republicans hold our security hostage to the greediest legislation ever: the elimination of the estate tax.

We have only estimates of how much it will cost to restore the Gulf Coast and New Orleans.  The latest estimate is 125 Billion dollars.  This is FIVE TIMES more costly than the current record-holder, Hurricane Andrew.  I think the final price tag will be signficantly higher than 125 billion, but I'll just use it for this point.

Taxpayers will spend 125 billion dollars to rebuild and restore the Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Alabama.
The government will lose 750 billion dollars in revenue if the estate tax is eliminated.  This will benefit only the 20,000 richest families in America.

Exactly what are the priorities of the Republican party?

The estate tax legislation is beyond irresponsible, it is utterly reckless.

the priorities of the Republican party are to have as little taxes as we can.  We dont like asking people to give up their money. 

the priorities of the Republican party are to have as little taxes as we can.  We dont like asking people to give up their money. 

Uhhh, excuse me, you didn't listen to a dang thing I said!  We have a country to run, and the money's gotta come from where the money is!
WTF?  The priorities of the Republicans, Billy, is to shift the tax burden off rich people and corporations and on to middle and working class people.  That was the cornerstone of Reaganomics.  All the extant theory of "supply side economics" and anti-tax populism is a wicked lie of the highest order. 
The biggest problem facing America today is greed.  The elimination of the estate tax is about naked greed, power-grabbing by the corporate barons, and establishing a permanent and static underclass who will do the bidding of the new aristocracy for starvation wages.  Any one of these politicos who tells you otherwise lies to you, Billy.  Any politico who tells himself otherwise lies to himself, which is even more dangerous!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RAW SEWAGE!

*wipes tear* You are my idol, Max.

*wipes tear* You are my idol, Max.

Alex, you make me blush! 

I'm just really P.O.'d and freaked-out about the estate tax issue.  Read some Dickens novels, that'll show you what we're heading for.
Conservatives are totally bonkers these days!  They want to deny the underpinnings of science in the classroom, but they can't get enough nuclear technology.  They're obsessed with surveillance and punishment, and worship like Gods eighteenth century millionaires who wore funny wigs and thought Blacks were sub-human.  They show contempt for Muslim fanatics, but want to turn our Constitution into the American Koran--an immutable, unquestion doctrine of God and Law to be interpreted only by a super-pious elite.

BTW, homophobe Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who declared the gay agenda was the biggest threat to America, started blubbering yesterday in the judiciary committee about "all the hate."  Coburn's an obstetrician who insisted lesbianism was so rampant in junior high schools, they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom at a time.  Is this the kind of guy you'd want examining you, your wife, your daughter?  Is it any better that he's in the senate?

If these guys get their way we'll be up the creek in a chickenwire canoe!

Well, for a start, they can start asking for some of the billions (probably trillions) of $$ we've "loaned" to other countries throughout the years.



We could....but who, thanks to Reagan and the Bushes, is the biggest debtor nation in the world?  Sometimes its best not to attract attention to oneself!
:-X


The repeal of the estate tax is guaranteed to lose us revenues bigtime, with a high probability of the rich people investing in very little to help the country's infrastructure.

As I recall, this country, in 2000, faced, for the first time in my living memory, a budget surplus, which Alan Greenspan said should be used, in part, to pay down the national debt, but OH NO, NOT THAT!!!  said the borrow and spend repuglicans...

As I recall, this country, in 2000, faced, for the first time in my living memory, a budget surplus, which Alan Greenspan said should be used, in part, to pay down the national debt, but OH NO, NOT THAT!!!  said the borrow and spend repuglicans...

That's what Howard Dean was saying last night.  If they repeal the estate tax, they'll have to double the deficits which are already at record highs.  "We have to balance the budget in this country sometime," said Dean.
Wrong again, Howard, wrong again!  Dean's problem is he's a doctor.  He's thinking in terms of homeostasis.  You have to bring fevers down, level off blood pressure, get the white blood cell count back to a normal range when you're treating a patient, or else the patient dies.  Not when you're running the biggest economy in the world!  Reagan showed us "deficits don't matter."  We don't have to payback that money, who's gonna make us?  Balance the budget?  That's a problem for your city and state governments to worry about.  The feds can stack debt to the moon and back if they want!

As I recall, this country, in 2000, faced, for the first time in my living memory, a budget surplus, which Alan Greenspan said should be used, in part, to pay down the national debt, but OH NO, NOT THAT!!!  said the borrow and spend repuglicans...


OK, let's be fair here.

For one, most of that "surplus" was only on paper, because of the way that the GAO changed it's accounting practices.

Prior to 1999, the GAO did not figure in the monies collected from SSI (Social Security) into the Federal Budget.  Because of this change, the next year we had a $236 billion surplus.  But taking that amount away again (as had been done in every year prior), there was a deficit of roughly $1.9 billion.

And add into that the recession that was already in effect by Summer 2000.  The recession was a slow one to start, but was in full effect by Spring 2001.  After almost 10 years of record expansion, the economy does what it always does, it retracts a bit.  This recession added more expense to the budget, and at the same time reduces taxable income.  The same thing happened in the early 1990's after the prior record expansion of the 1980's.

Then after September 2001, the nation had to spend large amounts of money on things like National Security.  Airport security was all nationalized, FEMA, Coast Guard, and a lot of other agencies had to be brought together under a new Cabinet level organization, the "Department Of Homeland Security".  This adds in even more expense.

Can anybody see what could have been done differently after 9/11?  What could have been done cheaper, and been effective?  More bases have been slated for closure at any time since WWII.  Governmental agencies have been consolidated, which will pay off in greater efficiency once they are fully working together.  Even in the private sector, there are expenses in combining different companies.  Just look at the tax writeoff that is allowed after a "Corporate Merger".

Can you please clarify which type of "estate tax" you are referring to??  I am in the real estate field here in California, and we were just talking the other day about how the term "estate tax" is used to mean two completely different things.  I haven't heard anything about eliminating estate tax on the news.. so I'm not sure which context the term was used in.

a) A higher form of property tax for those who own property deemed to be an "estate" as opposed to a simple "residence"

or

b) Another word for "inheritance tax" because any and all real/personal property inherited is considered an "estate".

Can someone please clarify which one we are talking about here? ???

Personally, I do not have much of a problem with the "Estate Tax", when applied to cash assets.

The problem I have is when it is applied to property or business assets.  What use is it to inherit something from your parents, if you have to either sell it, or motrgage it in order to pay the estate taxes on it?

My boss incorporated his 2 businesses in order to help shield the business from this.  It is small, and family owned.  But I am sure that if you boiled it down, the actual value is over $1 million.  But I would be surprised if more then $20-30k of that is cash assets.  The vast majority is locked up in land (he owns the land the businesses sit on) and the inventory.  If he died and they were forced to pay a tax on that, they would have no choice but to sell one or the other in order to pay it.

What good is it to build up a business to pass to your children, only to force them to sell it in order to pay the taxes?

Uhhh, excuse me, you didn't listen to a dang thing I said!   We have a country to run, and the money's gotta come from where the money is!
WTF?  The priorities of the Republicans, Billy, is to shift the tax burden off rich people and corporations and on to middle and working class people.  That was the cornerstone of Reaganomics.  All the extant theory of "supply side economics" and anti-tax populism is a wicked lie of the highest order. 
The biggest problem facing America today is greed.  The elimination of the estate tax is about naked greed, power-grabbing by the corporate barons, and establishing a permanent and static underclass who will do the bidding of the new aristocracy for starvation wages.  Any one of these politicos who tells you otherwise lies to you, Billy.  Any politico who tells himself otherwise lies to himself, which is even more dangerous!
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE RAW SEWAGE!


if you already had the answer, why did you ask?

I rather take the money away from all the nations we give aid to, and out from the money spent on the Iraq war, than away from our own people.  The people run the government.  The government is based on them, and I really dont think we should pay taxes for things like "The Estate Tax" when we dont want to.  People shouldnt be forced to give up their money. 

OK, let's be fair here.

For one, most of that "surplus" was only on paper, because of the way that the GAO changed it's accounting practices.


Oh, now I see.  What luck! What smashingly good luck, I say Niles!
Since the surplus was only on paper, the tax cuts doled out from the surplus were only on paper, and the Bush deficits are only on paper!  So, like, none of it's real!  So we're not really in debt, and nobody really got a tax cut.  
I'm having a very Buddhist moment here!

(Thank god we got rid of that pesky old gold standard, eh?)

:D ;D

if you already had the answer, why did you ask?

I rather take the money away from all the nations we give aid to, and out from the money spent on the Iraq war, than away from our own people.  The people run the government.  The government is based on them, and I really dont think we should pay taxes for things like "The Estate Tax" when we dont want to.  People shouldnt be forced to give up their money. 




Our foreign aid outlay is around 18 billion dollars a year, including 3 billion for Israel alone.  The loss of estate tax revenue would come to about 750 billion dollars over ten years, so that's about 75 billion per year.  So, the richest country in the world turns its back on all the other countries, saves 18 billion, eliminates the estate tax, and still ends up 57 billion in the hole!  I won't even begin to discuss the fallout from retracting all foreign aid because this scenario is too loopy to even consider.  I mean, WTF?

Why do we have to pay taxes when we don't want to?  For that matter, why do we have to pool resources at all?  Well, let's start at the beginning.  About 100,000 years ago people got together to do stuff, and they called this getting-together "society."  Now, in order for society to work...
Oh, never mind, this is futile!
::) ;D

What about just decreasing the estate tax?  I mean, come on, it's between 40-50%.  In some states, it's higher because you have an additional state tax on top of the federal.  These people have already paid yearly taxes of 35%+ on all of this and then when you die, your family gets hit with all of those taxes PLUS an additional 40-50% of what's left, then THEY have to pay income taxes on what they received?  That's just not right :(

The estate tax to which I refer, aka "the inheritence tax" or "the Paris Hilton tax" only applies to the top few percentile, and mostly to the top one percent.  It is a myth family farms are sold to pay the tax, the same with small businesses.  Some millionaire families do get nailed "unfairly" with the estate tax.  However, if a family manages the estate with the advice of a decent lawyer, they can avoid excessive taxation.  The idea the estate tax is "unfair" is a result of the American rich being one of the most self-pitying classes of people in the world, and the Wall Street-oriented media wringing their hands on behalf of the wealthy.

It is a myth family farms are sold to pay the tax, the same with small businesses.


That is not true.  I can name several off of the top of my head.  Heck, I worked for one of them!

What most do is incorporate.  This makes the business a seperate legal entity.  It is a dodge, whick makes the lawyers millions of dollars every year.

If the estate taxes only incorporated cash assets, this would not be nessicary.  But because it includes the value of all property, elaborate steps are needed in order to protect family assets.

And yes, farms are lost because of this.  Trust me, I lived in a rural area in the 1970's and early 1980's.  Farms were put into mortgage to pay the taxes, and were often bought up by conglomerates.  The ones that are left mostly incorporated in order to protect themselves.

I think that part of the motivation for putting it in place originally was to deter an aristocracy in this country. Right now, its not doing all that great a job, so I can't even imagine how much further we will drift(or full speed ahead rather) toward a Third World-like wealth gap. Sure, our rich are the richest, but poverty is growing every day in this country, and the middle class are slipping. I don't care if the people in the Hamptons or Beverly Hills are doing well, if the rest of us are going downhill, than the U.S. has become a paper tiger.

OK, let's be fair here.

For one, most of that "surplus" was only on paper, because of the way that the GAO changed it's accounting practices.




That's not what Alan Greenspan said!  Sources please.

That's not what Alan Greenspan said!  Sources please.

Alan Greenspan has a history of saying what the President wants to hear.  It's amazing for a man with such a greenspan to have such a brown nose!

That is not true.  I can name several off of the top of my head.  Heck, I worked for one of them!

What most do is incorporate.  This makes the business a seperate legal entity.  It is a dodge, whick makes the lawyers millions of dollars every year.

If the estate taxes only incorporated cash assets, this would not be nessicary.  But because it includes the value of all property, elaborate steps are needed in order to protect family assets.

And yes, farms are lost because of this.  Trust me, I lived in a rural area in the 1970's and early 1980's.  Farms were put into mortgage to pay the taxes, and were often bought up by conglomerates.  The ones that are left mostly incorporated in order to protect themselves.

Lots of times there are onerous tax bills families must settle after the death of the owner.  These are not necessarily the specific "estate tax."  They are often things like back property taxes. 
I'd have to do some research to find out how many family farms and small businesses qualified for the estate tax in past decades, but I suspect it wasn't much different.

Here's an editorial from the Washington Post from this summer about the family farm and the estate tax:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300741.html
Another tidbit:
Myth: The estate tax must be repealed because it forces family farms to sell.
Fact: As with family businesses, this issue has been distorted. Only 3 of every 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate in which a farm forms the majority of the estate. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Federation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. Like businesses, family farms can be protected by raising exemption levels.
http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETMythsFacts.html
Here is the "small business" article from the same (crypto-pinko commie) site:
http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETBusiness.html


Well, I'm far from the "American rich", but I STILL see it as unfair.  Like Mushroom has said, the estate tax includes ALL property, whether cash or physical.  And I, growing up in a rural area, have also seen family farms being sold to pay the tax
Again, unless these are very rich farmers, with assets in the millions, you may be confusing "estate taxes" with "property taxes."  You could make a case for more property tax forbearance or amnesties following the death of the owner in order to keep the family from having to sell the property, but the Bushies aren't.  All those family farms and small businesses with assets only in the hundreds of thousands, and perhaps running in the red with debt, are still going to get screwed.  I am all for keeping family farms in the family.  The corporatists are not.  The family farm was once the staple of the midwestern rural economy.  Now when you drive through Kansas or rural Illinois you see run down ghost towns, Wal-Marts, and huuuuuge agri-business conglomerate farms.  Of course, this is a separate issue from estate taxes.
I hear the claims you and Mush are making but the numbers just don't bear it out regarding the estate tax.
Your rhetoric smacks of the attitude promoted by America's self-pitying rich.  God-fearing sod-busters work the soil and toil in the shop for fifty years and when they die, the jackbooted thugs come from the IRS and seize all that hard-earned wealth for the government to pour down a sieve. (you know, they'll use it to buy Cadillacs for crackwhores with 81 children and to build a zillion mile wetland preserve for the swallowed-tailed peeping tom, something like that).
It's nice divisive rhetoric and faux-populism, but has little to do with reality.

How many institutions do you know of named after rich families?  Think libraries, colleges, museums, parks, and the foundations and the like.  That's called philanthropy, and a big motivation for rich people to engage in philanthropy--work for the benefit of mankind--is to determine what shall become of their assets before the government does.  If Carnegie, Mellon, Vanderbilt, Rockafeller, Getty, and Gates had no estate tax to worry about, they'd be more motivated to just keep it all in the family.  OK, so your ultra-right-wingers would say, "it's their money, and their choice."  But when the wealthiest families wealth snowballs as their billions generate ever more billions untaxed, you have a tiny aristocracy owning 90% of all wealth, maybe 99% of all wealth.  Then you have no democratic republic.  You have Haiti on a colossal scale.  A few families rich beyond your wildest dreams with private fiefdoms, private armies, and quasi-independent governments.  The rest of us would be info feudal serfdom.  Before such a nightmare scenario could ever occur, most experts agree, you would have civil unrest that would rend our social fabric beyond repair.  What the revolution would look like, I'm no sure.  What the post-revolutionary America would be like, I'm not sure.  I am sure it wouldn't be pleasant!
Carnegie and Gates are not such great examples for both men wanted to use their wealth for philanthropic causes--Carnegie out Presbyterian guilt, Gates because he didn't want to leave outrageous billions for his heirs to get degenerate off of, and because philanthropy is the moral thing to do.
But there are many more super-rich families--such as the Gettys and the Bushes--who would be happy to become the kings of the post-capitalist neo-medieval world!

This is what I think is unfair.  I bought my home for $550,000 two years ago.  With my 4.75% mortgage (which is a great rate) I will have paid over $1,000,000 by the time it is paid off, assuming I pay the regular amount every month.  That is only for my mortgage.  Then you add on about $9000 a year in property taxes.    Figure in that if I sell it, and the value has gone up substantially, I will get dinged again on capital gains, even if I have actually lost money on the house. 

Also, suppose I want to rent out my house to someone.  Suppose I want to buy 3 or 4 houses and rent them out, and I want to make a business of doing this.  Well, business expenses are supposed to be tax deductible.  If I owned a rental car business, I could write off the cost of the cars I purchase as business expenses.  If I owned a store and rented a space, I could write off the rent, plus the merchandise I purchase for resale.  So I should be able to write off the purchase of the houses I buy to rent out, right??  WRONG!  I get dinged again because I can only write off the interest, even though the principle is a business expense... but I still have to claim all of the rental income.

Property owners get dinged enough... the banks are the ones who make out like bandits when it comes to property.

Our foreign aid outlay is around 18 billion dollars a year, including 3 billion for Israel alone.  The loss of estate tax revenue would come to about 750 billion dollars over ten years, so that's about 75 billion per year.  So, the richest country in the world turns its back on all the other countries, saves 18 billion, eliminates the estate tax, and still ends up 57 billion in the hole!  I won't even begin to discuss the fallout from retracting all foreign aid because this scenario is too loopy to even consider.  I mean, WTF?

not pull aid completly...just cut all our aid in half.  I have a feeling youre exageratingly (is that a word?) lowering the amount of money we give to foreign countries in aid



Why do we have to pay taxes when we don't want to?  For that matter, why do we have to pool resources at all?  Well, let's start at the beginning.  About 100,000 years ago people got together to do stuff, and they called this getting-together "society."  Now, in order for society to work...
Oh, never mind, this is futile!
::) ;D




since that society is based on the people, we have a right to rule it the way we want.  We entered into a social contract.  We pull the strings in this contract.  When the government (which we gave power to on the basis they work in our favor) does something we dont want to agree to, we have the power to say "NO!".  We're their boss, not the opposite way around. 

With this, if the people dont want to pay the estate tax...or any tax...because we dont want to give up our money, then we dont have to. 

and dont give me that BS about a government needing to function...our government is hardly fuctioning like it should now...if there were any time that we should stand up for our rights it's now...Im not saying lets pull the John Locke card and have a revolution (no, not at all), but Im saying that we should show this government who the bosses are.  We gave them power and we can take it away...or at least threaten to. 

People shouldnt have to give up their money if they dont want to. 

I know this all relates to the hurricane and the need to rebuild New Orleans.  People are donating money on their own without the government forcing them to.  In fact, on Thursday night I MCed and performed at a huge Hurricane Benefit that I helped put together at Hofstra University...there were about 500 people that attened all night, and I want to say about 2 dozen acts performed, and we brought in over 1,275 dollars, and 75 supply items.  We're still collecting too.  All of this was given purly volentary. 

This is what I think is unfair.   I bought my home for $550,000 two years ago.  With my 4.75% mortgage (which is a great rate) I will have paid over $1,000,000 by the time it is paid off, assuming I pay the regular amount every month.  That is only for my mortgage.  Then you add on about $9000 a year in property taxes.    Figure in that if I sell it, and the value has gone up substantially, I will get dinged again on capital gains, even if I have actually lost money on the house. 

Also, suppose I want to rent out my house to someone.  Suppose I want to buy 3 or 4 houses and rent them out, and I want to make a business of doing this.  Well, business expenses are supposed to be tax deductible.  If I owned a rental car business, I could write off the cost of the cars I purchase as business expenses.  If I owned a store and rented a space, I could write off the rent, plus the merchandise I purchase for resale.  So I should be able to write off the purchase of the houses I buy to rent out, right??  WRONG!  I get dinged again because I can only write off the interest, even though the principle is a business expense... but I still have to claim all of the rental income.

Property owners get dinged enough... the banks are the ones who make out like bandits when it comes to property.

For you, I shall play Barber's Adagio on the violin!  The point, after all, is not that you you live more luxuriously than quite nearly all humanity now and through the ages, but that you are being martyred for buying a half-million dollar house.  I can assure you, however, you are stil too small potatoes to qualify for the "estate tax," unless you get a heck of a lot richer before you kick the bucket.  Your gripe is about property taxes and capital gains taxes, a related subject, but not the same.

Billy, you don't get it, and you're not even trying to!

The point, after all, is not that you you live more luxuriously than quite nearly all humanity now and through the ages, but that you are being martyred for buying a half-million dollar house. 

I do not live more luxuriously than nearly all humanity.  Not even close.  Truth is, you can't get a house in San Jose without paying at least a half million... except for the occasional 1 bedroom cabin or the severe fixer-upper.

I do not live more luxuriously than nearly all humanity.  Not even close.  Truth is, you can't get a house in San Jose without paying at least a half million... except for the occasional 1 bedroom cabin or the severe fixer-upper.

Oh, you bought a house in San Jose.  Well, that does change things a bit!  I didn't know you could buy a house in SJ for under a million!  Actually, I forgot you lived in California.  A buddy of mine used to live in the Bay Area in the '70s.  His wife really wants them to move back to California.  He's scouting out some places, but the closest he can afford to SF is the Fort Bragg area!  That's how outrageous the market is.  I hope the two of them don't retire to some isolated crag on the foggy north coast.  They'll only drive eachother even crazier up there!
::)

Anyway, you still have it better than most of the human race, and I don't mean you're in the top third or quarter, I mean you're well into the upper half of the top decile.  It's rather hard to quantify, but we Americans tend to take a staggering amount of leisure and luxury for granted.

I guess me idea of the estate tax protecting against aristocracy is a bit too radical for address. :D

I guess me idea of the estate tax protecting against aristocracy is a bit too radical for address. :D

About twenty times the number of Americans think they're in the top wealth percentile than actually are.  That's why there's so much worry about the estate tax. 

I guess me idea of the estate tax protecting against aristocracy is a bit too radical for address. :D


Im just playing devils advocate here, but this is an interesting thought...whats wrong with us having an elected branch of aristocracy?  Why do we need protection from it?  Many theorists in the past have claimed that the aristocracy is the only form of government that's worth having.  Would it be so bad to have one? 

Look past what you were taught in high school...think this one out...why would it be horrible, other than because my textbook says so.

Btw, this is open to everyone, Im just bringing it up as an interesting question....

Im just playing devils advocate here, but this is an interesting thought...whats wrong with us having an elected branch of aristocracy?  Why do we need protection from it?  Many theorists in the past have claimed that the aristocracy is the only form of government that's worth having.  Would it be so bad to have one? 

Look past what you were taught in high school...think this one out...why would it be horrible, other than because my textbook says so.

Btw, this is open to everyone, Im just bringing it up as an interesting question....


"Elected aristocracy" is an oxymoron.  Quit d*cking around!

"Elected aristocracy" is an oxymoron.  Quit d*cking around!


Max, we have one...its called Congress. 

Im just playing devils advocate here, but this is an interesting thought...whats wrong with us having an elected branch of aristocracy?  Why do we need protection from it?  Many theorists in the past have claimed that the aristocracy is the only form of government that's worth having.  Would it be so bad to have one? 

Look past what you were taught in high school...think this one out...why would it be horrible, other than because my textbook says so.

Btw, this is open to everyone, Im just bringing it up as an interesting question....


Billy, please read the first few lines of the Declaration of Independance, and look up the word aristocracy.  If you believe in (at least) political equality, which is the minimalist meaning of "all men are created equal" than you have to reject aristocracy. 

On my mother's side I can claim the rank of hidalgo, or knight, and (according to my father) on his side there are some connections to the Holenzolern dynasty.  Assuming those blood lines are correct, does that mean that I should have greater social or political rank and/or influance than the decendant of an Irish potato famine immigrant or Italian peasant?  To paraphrase M.L.King, I would prefer to be judged by the content of my character (and intelligance etc) than by thye blueness of my blood line.  Now when you study the history of our blue bloods (the Kennedys, the Rockerfellers, the Duponts, the Morgans etc) you find a pretty disreputable bunch of forbearers when in tomes to questions of character.  All their closets are filled with skeletons. 

And one more thing, expressed with a bit of lightness;  isn't this the country where any low born peon is suppose to be able to rise to the top?  The estate tax, which touches about 2% of those who crock, is but a small step toward insuring that we maintain the limited meritocracy that we have.

This is what I think is unfair.   I bought my home for $550,000 two years ago.  With my 4.75% mortgage (which is a great rate) I will have paid over $1,000,000 by the time it is paid off, assuming I pay the regular amount every month.  That is only for my mortgage.  Then you add on about $9000 a year in property taxes.    Figure in that if I sell it, and the value has gone up substantially, I will get dinged again on capital gains, even if I have actually lost money on the house. 

Also, suppose I want to rent out my house to someone.  Suppose I want to buy 3 or 4 houses and rent them out, and I want to make a business of doing this.  Well, business expenses are supposed to be tax deductible.  If I owned a rental car business, I could write off the cost of the cars I purchase as business expenses.  If I owned a store and rented a space, I could write off the rent, plus the merchandise I purchase for resale.  So I should be able to write off the purchase of the houses I buy to rent out, right??  WRONG!  I get dinged again because I can only write off the interest, even though the principle is a business expense... but I still have to claim all of the rental income.

Property owners get dinged enough... the banks are the ones who make out like bandits when it comes to property.


Betcha I can help you restructure that mortgage so you don't have as much total cost ;)

Max, we have one...its called Congress. 

Webster's:

1. A class of persons holding exceptional rank and privilages, especially hereditary nobility (emphasis mine)
2. A government or state ruled by an aristorcracy, elite or priveleged upper class.

Those are the top two definitions.  I agree with Billy in that our Congress resembles too much an aristocracy the way incumbents are rubberstamped by voters election in election out, the way so many of them are stinking rich, and the way constituencies are so ready to elect by family name.
It resembles an aristocracy---but it most emphatically isn't.  It's the result of a lazy and ignorant electorate.  We live in a post-revolutionary society.  We could throw all those bums out by ballot if we wanted.
Not true at the time of the American Revolution.  If you were born the heir to the fourth Earl of Wessex, it was your position by birthright.  That is what aristocracy means, as in hereditary nobility.
The Bushes would like to return to hereditary nobility, but they can't succeed in doing so even by stealing elections.  Perhaps in a few generations, it will be given over as a birthright, and then we will be right back to the Tories of 1775. 

The American financial "barons" of industry and banking Don Carlos mentioned are "aristocrats" in the less formal sense of privilege, but not in the strict sense of hereditary nobility.  No matter how huge Rockafeller's fortune was, his descendents could only control the corporate empires John D. left in their hands.
This is where the estate tax is necessary to regulate democracy.  If bloodlines cannot bequeath societal control in America, money can replace blood for the same purpose.  If Joe Billionaire leaves ten billion dollars untaxed to his daughter, Jane Billionaire, she can over the course of a lifetime parlay ten billion into 100 billion, which she bequeaths to her son, Jim Billionaire, who just might increase the fortune to 1000 billion--that's right a trillion dollars, a 1 followed by twelve zeroes.  To give you an idea of how big a number a trillion is:
A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. A trillion seconds is 31,688 years.
(conservatively speaking, if Bill Gates spent one dollar every second, it would take him 1395 years to spend his fortune of 45 billion dollars.  Or whatever it is this week.)
As Depeche Mode said, "everything counts in large amounts."  Money equals power in American politics.  We all know that.  If fortunes go untaxed, and with interest and investments grow exponentially over a few generations, we will have just a few families able to rival the entire GNP. Think about it--is it possible to maintain any semblance of democracy in that case?

So why don't we just give ALL of our $$ to the government?  That way, everyone can be dirt poor and they can continue to spend, spend, spend.  If the estate tax was being applied to ALL people, you'd be in an uproar over how it's not fair to the "average joe" but because it only applies to the wealthy, it's perfectly fine?  You should change your name to "Robin Hood" because that's exactly what you're suggesting:  take from the rich and give to the poor.  You wouldn't DARE tell someone who was living paycheck to paycheck what they should or shouldn't do with their money, what right do you have to tell someone who's GOT it what THEY should do with it?

This baby barely qualifies for an answer, but the money's gotta come from where the money is.  The Average Joe pays a higher percentage of his earnings in taxes than a rich person pays in capital gains.  I don't think you want to say taxes are more burdensome for a multi-millionaire receiving thirty grand monthly in dividends than a bus driver earning thirty grand a year in wages.  Of course, the multi-millionaire will tell you a sob story because, as I say, the American rich have a bottomless capacity for self-pity.  The argument the rich gave via Reagan was if you cut their taxes they would invest in America.  The lied.  They didn't invest in America.  They divested.  The government subsidized corporations to move offshore, and the capitalists fought tooth-and-nail to turn "trickle down" into "trickle up."  They speculated on foreign currencies in Asia instead of building plants in Gary, Indiana. 
You ask me what "right" I have?  Let me tell you, ma soeur, rights are neither "had" nor "given."  Rights are taken.  They are fought for and won bloodily.  People of color, women, and my fellow proles have forgotten this and learned to trust the capitalist parasites.  Thus, we are seeing reactionary stooges running our governments, populating our courts, and the "rights" we have taken for granted for forty, sixty, eighty years under a looming threat of decimation.

The "estate" tax was passed in what, 1913 I think?  The founding fathers probably rolled over in their graves.

The "estate" tax was passed in what, 1913 I think? The founding fathers probably rolled over in their graves.


I guess they rolled over when we gave women the vote too.

Fair is subjective.  I could say it's not fair that I have to pay taxes to subsadize public schools and public hospitals and student loans that other people use.  Or that its not fair I have to pay unemployment tax and social security tax that other people use.  There is such a thing as public good.

I didn't say they were more burdensome, but I also think the tax system needs to be fair. And yes, 30% to "the average Joe" is more burdensome than 30% to a multi-millionaire, but the multi-millionaire also gets dinged for capital gains, then when they die, their family STILL has to pay the regular income taxes on the deceased's "income", they STILL have to pay the capital gains tax, they THEN have to pay the regular income taxes for themselves, the capital gains tax on what they inherited, PLUS they have to pay the "estate tax". Whether it's a burden or not, it's not fair.


Not all aspects of government are fair. If you are looking at it that simplistically, you could argue taxes period are not fair. But we live in the real world and the government, as Max said, has to get the money from where the money is. That may sound "unfair" to those folks, but the ones who are taxed like that are so wealthy even after those taxes they are better off than the average joe. I can't conjure up even a shred of sympathy from listening to this oft-repeated "sob story"(nicely put!).

Democracy cannot be sustained with stagnant wealth. Meaning, without economic mobility in our society. Personally, I don't think its being sustained well enough right now anyway. But getting rid of the estate tax? We might as well go ahead and re-name the Senate the House of Lords!

I remember back during the Enron scandal, there was an executive(an Asian fellow) who was being followed by reporters on television(this was the local Houston news) and one of them asked him "don't you feel anything for the employees who have lost all of their savings?" and he replied "I feel nothing". These financial pirates(because lets face it, that is what they are) don't give a D@MN about taking money from the common man. So when the estate tax takes a few mil off of poor little Johnny Trump's muy granda inheritance, I too, "feel nothing".

You are showing a real bias there though, as if most wealthy people or corporate execs are evil.

I think that the lot of them(the super wealthy that is) are infact, lets say, slight in character. There are exceptions, but for the most part to attain that type of wealth you have to **** a lot of people over.

I think that the lot of them(the super wealthy that is) are infact, lets say, slight in character. There are exceptions, but for the most part to attain that type of wealth you have to **** a lot of people over.


Well, sure you THINK that.

Ok? ???

I believe you are confusing estate taxes with property taxes..

Well, if what you say is true, that sounds like a reason for a sensable tax, not a reason for no tax.

Why should the "financial pirates" feel anything about taking money from the common man?  Noone feels anything about taking THEIR money?  Oh de po' millionaires, their hard earned dividends taxed to pay for the undeserving public's welfare!  For shame!
::)
So, I feel my payroll taxes are too high and nobody gives a d@mn.  Therefore, I'm going go hold up the First National Bank!  When my lawyer tells the judge I only robbed the bank because the state rips off my money, I'm sure to get off the hook--and not have to give the loot back either!  I mean, come on!  If I said it was OK for a kid to hold up a 7-11 because society done him wrong, you'd shriek!  Why is it OK for rich peope to commit crimes, and not poor people?
  :D

Also, you're assuming that the "estate tax" ONLY applies to those for whom a few extra thousand dollars doesn't matter.  It doesn't.  I've seen family farms being sold to cover the "estate tax" simply because some suit in an office decides that the land that they have worked on their entire lives is worth a few million to a developer.  
I know I've been sarcastic to you before, but I'm serious here.  If you have the documentation, or can show me where to find the documentation, that family farms are being sold to pay the "estate tax," please do.  Guys like Paul Krugman and David Cay Johnston of the NYT who dispute this claim need to see evidence to the contrary.  The experts say the claim about family farms is not true.  The experts have been wrong before.  Neither Krugman nor Johnston said it never happened, only that they found no evidence of it.

what does the estate tax have to do with committing crimes?  IMO, it's not okay for ANYONE to commit a crime.  I don't care if they're rich or poor. Well, I don't have any documentation.  It's not something that was publicized because my friend didn't want anyone to know, he inherited his "pride" from his father, but of course, living in a small town, everyone found out.  I'm not saying it happens every day, either, but it DOES happen.  My friend and his wife and kids are now living with HER family somewhere down south (Tennessee, I think) and running their farm.  They have made sure this time to get a good lawyer to make sure this doesn't happen again. 

This is why I said earlier, agreeing with Mushroom, that I'd have no problem if it only applied to cash (or cash-like) assets, but applying it to thing such as land (for which the "value" is subjective), IMO, is just wrong.

You justified the white collar crimes of corporate executives by implying they shouldn't feel moral qualms about stealing the "comman man's" money because no one cares about taking the money of corporate execs through a legal tax code.  To be fair, you didn't say they should steal money from shareholders as opposed to not stealing it.  However, if you were the judge and jury, you'd let the corporate execs off the hook, according to the sentiments you expressed.

I have never heard of any person feeling ashamed of inheriting property.  Sounds mighty suspicious to me.  I didn't say you had documentation, I asked if you could get it.  If you are unwilling to disclose the case details, your claim about a family farm sold to pay "estate taxes" remains just another anectdote, and not a credible one at that.

I have never heard of any person feeling ashamed of inheriting property.  Sounds mighty suspicious to me. 


That is a goofy statement.  If your rich uncle (should you have one, let's assume you do) decided to leave you a million dollars and his Porsche to you when he died, would you refuse it? 

I'd probably donate the Porsche for a tax deduction though, I don't need such a fast car :D  And I'd invest the dooky out of the million dollars so it becomes TWO million.  AHAHAA!

If they STOLE the $$, then there is no justification for that.  However, in your opinion, almost ANYTHING a corporate exec makes more than the common worker is STEALING. ::)  My in-laws live off my FIL's pension and their dividends, are THEY also "financial pirates"?  They earn more off their dividends than his pension.  He worked for John Deere in the factory until he retired, was "laid off" for 10 years or so, but have invested their money wisely and live MORE comfortably than probably 90% of the population.  If they were to both pass away today, we and our children would stand to inherit about 1/2 million dollars (between trusts, property and cash). He was not ashamed of inheriting the property, he was ashamed that he lost what his family had worked so hard over many years for by not being able to pay the estate taxes.  He felt that he had failed the family (still does) by not being able to find some other way to raise the money.    Believe it, don't believe it, that's YOUR prerogative.  I KNOW what this guy went through, I grew up with him and I was there with him the day of the auction.  What type of "details" and "documentation" do you want?  I'm not going to ASK him for his paperwork regarding the taxes and sale of the property just to justify it to you.  Heck, even if I had all of the paperwork, you probably STILL wouldn't believe it ::)

You're not so far off in your sarcasm.  As Ralph Nader says, most of the criminal things corporations do are perfectly legal.  When corporate executives commit crimes even our corporate-crony state has encoded as violations of law, they are not pursued the way street criminals are.  Our press has a very sympathetic outlook on white-collar crime.  It took psychopathic behavior on the level of Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco to nudge our press into saying those execs were crooks who ought to be punished.  The crimes committed by these corporations cost tens of thousands of people their life savings.
It's like with the predatory price extortion the oil companies are practicing.  Even FOX News Kool-Aid drinkers don't like to pay $3.50 per gallon ($5.50 after Rita, just watch), so Bill O'Reilly finally set his sites on big business.  He hasn't aggressive about it, like when he throws bombs at the ACLU, but at least he said it wasn't right.

As for your friend and his farm, it was just a suggestion.  I don't want the documentation.  I just thought if you could expose the fallacious claims of the Ivy League economists who write for the NYT that family farms ARE NOT lost to the estate tax, you might be up for a Pulitzer Prize. 

What I see in your umbrage against my criticisms of the American class structure is the true state religion of the U.S: the Money God.  We indoctrinated to bow to the rich as the clerics of this corporate church, Wall Street as the Vatican, the federal reserve chair as the Pope.  The money of the rich is "the light of the world," as Lewis Lapham put it a few years ago in Harper's.  That's how a huge plurality of Americans see it.  When somebody comes along and says "money is ungod," these Americans become jealous and resentful.  It matters not the degree to which they too are screwed over by corporations.  They don't want to know how corporate influence shifts the burden of taxation away from the wealthy and on to the middle and working classes.  They don't want to know the reality of poverty in America.  Poverty is a sign of sin...poor folks have sinned against the Money God.  They deserve their plight.  The word from Wall Street is always right.  Wall Street business priests say America is growing ever richer and within sight is the Golden Age of capitalism.  If you get left behind, you are rabble.  You ought to be ridiculed, like those odious shirks with the foodstamps and the $2000 rims.
::)

Come on Max, of course corporate crime is not pursued like street crime.  Do you think it just as bad for someone to embezzle as to assault you?

Come on Max, of course corporate crime is not pursued like street crime.  Do you think it just as bad for someone to embezzle as to assault you?

Street crime is acute and traumatic.
White collar crime is insidious and cancerous.
Those who tolerate the white collar criminal say he doesn't hurt people the way the street thug does.  True...and not true.  The punk on the corner shoves a knife in your face and steals your wallet.  Ken Lay offers you worthless stock and steals your entire life savings.

Remember the junk bond con artists in the '80s, Charles Keating and the "Keating Five."  They stole billions from Americans, mostly gullable seniors, by selling worthless bond certificates.  They financially ruined I forgot how many thousands of peple.  You remember who had to pay back all those billions?  The American taxpayer.

It doesn't make sense to me that anybody would look at them the same way.  Besides white collar crime and street crime are handled totally separate so its hard to compare how there prosecuted.

It doesn't make sense to me that anybody would look at them the same way.  Besides white collar crime and street crime are handled totally separate so its hard to compare how there prosecuted.


This is true.  Typically insider-trading crimes carry a fine of three times the amount gained or loss averted, and most other securities-related crimes carry a fine upwards of $250K.  Most "blue-collar" criminals wouldn't be able to afford that even after selling a vital organ on the black market, which is why they are tossed into jail.

While the white-collar criminal doesn't spread death and pestilence the way a murderer or a rapist would, his/her crimes still affect the public's financial future, and this is why they are punished.  But you have to make the punishment fit the crime.  Maybe we should up their fine or something so people will be more satisfied?

This is true.  Typically insider-trading crimes carry a fine of three times the amount gained or loss averted, and most other securities-related crimes carry a fine upwards of $250K.  Most "blue-collar" criminals wouldn't be able to afford that even after selling a vital organ on the black market, which is why they are tossed into jail.

While the white-collar criminal doesn't spread death and pestilence the way a murderer or a rapist would, his/her crimes still affect the public's financial future, and this is why they are punished.  But you have to make the punishment fit the crime.  Maybe we should up their fine or something so people will be more satisfied?

White collar crime indirectly spreads death and pestilence...and the worst of it isn't even considered "crime" under our legal code.  Just look at Coca-Cola and water rights in the so-called Third World.  Look at Monsanto's destruction of the world's agricultural diversity via bogus genetic patenting.  Monsanto and Coca-Cola are putting millions of lives at risk.  Yet, the predatory activities of these mega-corporations are not against the law.

The corporation is a predatory institution.  We must not be surprised when individuals within corporations act as white-collar super-predators.

Perhaps we should send white-collar criminals to super-max prisons.  Unlike the desperate street predator who robs convenience stores, the white-collar criminal might think twice about embezzlement if he might end up at Pelican Bay.

Perhaps we should just get rid of corporations :D

No.  I'm just saying we shouldn't let them run our country and run our lives.  That's what has been happening for decades, and the U.S. is falling to pieces because of it.   And if you going to make some kind of odious comparison to government bureaucracy, don't bother.  I've heard it all before.  Just go back and drink your fascist Kook-Aid!
:)

Billy, please read the first few lines of the Declaration of Independance, and look up the word aristocracy.  If you believe in (at least) political equality, which is the minimalist meaning of "all men are created equal" than you have to reject aristocracy. 




in reality, I do reject aristocracy...at least the dictionary definition of it. I do though believe that our Congress is our form of Aristocracy.  Not in a bad way though, but just as a group of people, who are in higher standing than others, who make laws.  Unfortunatly, some of the bad qualities of aristocracy do fall in line with many people in Congress as well.

I find Alexis De Tocquville's interpretation of why we need an aristocracy (as said in Democracy in America...one of my favorite pieces of poltical theory) quite interesting.  Not sure I agree with him fully, but it is quite interesting.   

WOW!!!  I've been called alot of things....fascist is a new one ::)

I don't think you intend to be fascist, but your reverence for corporate power, your blindness to the vagaries of accumulated wealth, and your contempt for poor people leads you that direction.
Our images of "fascism" are based in WWII regimes--Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin--which were crude in their approach.  Mussolini declared "fascism should more appropriately be called fascism because it is the marriage of state and corporate power."  That defines the regime under which we live today.
In our American version of fascism ala Ronald Reagan the rich of the business world are revered as the pillars of our capitalist economy and moral exemplars of the values we should all strive to attain...ie. Jesus was a capitalist.  That is why Steve Forbes began his campaign calling only for a flat tax that would favor the Wall Street rich.  He soon adopted the moralist Christian Right dogma necessary to fall in line with the Pat Robertson side of the Republican party.  Similarly, Pat Robertson is a vicious corporate mogul who disguises himself as fundamentalist Christian minister.
Remember--corporatism, militarism, nationalism, conformist dogma, and scapegoated minorities are the necessary ingredients of fascism, and the Bush administration pushes every one of them like crazy!
So you say, "But I didn't vote for Bush!"  However, your statements on matters of wealth and poverty tell me you have drunk the fascist Kook-Aid.  Sorry if this is harsh, but I must call them like I see them.  I know refering to "Kook-Aid" isn't going to win you over, but that prospect is obviously hopeless.
::)

^ That's not extremist or anything.

^ That's not extremist or anything.

Nope.  It's just an unclouded view some of us don't want to see!

No, you call them like you want to see them.  Anyone with a differing view from yours is "fascist", "socialist", "communist", whateverist. 

First off, I don't have contempt for "poor people".  I have contempt for people who abuse the system, whether they be rich or poor.  I have contempt for people who say "You owe me" when sticking their hands out for something free from the government.

Reverence for corporate power?  Where do you see that?  Simply because I believe that not ALL people in the corporate world are evil?  Sorry, but it's the "corporate world" that pays my bills and I try not to bite the hands that feed. 

I don't know WHAT you mean by "blindness to the vagaries of accumulated wealth".  That just makes no sense at all.  Because I don't advocate the "Robin Hood philosophy"?  Because I think the estate tax is inherently unfair?  Because I think people should be treated equally, regardless of their "class"?  Just because "they can afford it" doesn't make it right.

I got carried away with the labelling.  Words such as "fascist" are inflammatory.  I know better than to use words that are sure to elicit a negative reaction.
I didn't imply all people in the corporate world are "evil."  I do say the people who control corporations are pathologically greedy.  There is healthy and unhealthy competition.  What we see in the business model of profit over labor at all costs is unhealthy competition.  Executive spokespeople tell the public companies can't survive unless they grab every penny of profit they can. If this means paying the CEO 500 million dollars to lay off a hundred thousand American workers, and then get a government subsidy (hand-out) to finance the offshoring of their operations, so be it.  That is evil.  People in power, whether in business or government, don't wake up in the morning and say, "Another evil day, another evil deed."  Most of them have good intentions.  There are cases, such as with the criminals at Enron, where the executives show malice aforethought.  Most of the time, they know they must make the maximum profit for the next quarter or the board will fire them. That's why I don't believe in letting the corporation be the dominant entity in the economy.

You will see the estate tax as unfair if you believe it deprives small business owners and family farmers of their livelihoods.  I'm not saying it never happens.  However, claims about middle class, or even upper middle class people, getting ruined by the estate tax are anectdotal and unsubstantiated, including your story about this farmer friend of yours.  You will also see the estate tax as unfair if you take an emotional view of it based on a heroic narrative of the life of a multimillionaire.  If you say, "well, so-and-so worked hard all his life for everything he's got, and now the government is taking half his money away because he died," of course that sounds unfair.
I described the necessity for the estate tax and the dangers of accumulated wealth in an earlier post.  For a great read on this matter, I suggest Kevin Phillips' book Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich.  Phillips is no commie, he used to work for Nixon.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_3_27/ai_86047845

If you believe people should be treated equally regardless of their class, you must advocate legal, social, and political reforms as drastic as anything I have suggested.  Of course, "treated equally" and "class" are ambiguous concepts.  This notion in the hands of conservatives usually means, "anybody caught panhandling should be arrested for vagrancy, whether they're a bum or a millionaire!"
::)
Nobody comes out and just says, "I hate the poor."  Like you, they always find reasons to say, "I don't hate the poor, just poor people who do such-and-such."  The column of despicable poor people grows lengthy, and the column of worthy poor people stays brief, or doesn't exist in the end.  The "worthy" poor person is usually a stereotype of the Horatio Alger story variety.

Incidentally, most people who get free stuff from the government are rich people.  If I point to lavish corporate subsidies and business tax write-offs, that's when your "reverence for corporate power" will kick in.  You'll say, "But they provide jobs.  They invest in America."  Not really.  Like I said, that was the big lie of Reaganomics.  What corporations have been doing with government subsidies is crucifying the American blue-collar economy on a cross of gold.  The government actually pays big corporations to research, set-up, and transfer operations from America to the Third World.  As for these touted tax incentives, the fatcats use them to speculate on foreign currencies, futures markets, and the like.  These activities only help to concentratet the wealth of the nation in fewer and fewer hands.  In a nutshell, the corporate bigshots keep saying they'll invest in our economy if we cut their taxes, but they always divest.  So you'd have to be an idiot to trust them again.  You know, it was one thing in 1981, in 2005, it's quite another!

Robin Hood philosophy?  Well, all I can say is the people running the corporations and the government today have a reverse Robin Hood philosophy!

And who isn't?  How many people, regardless of how much they do/don't have wish they had more?  How many people say "I'm underpaid" regardless of whether they are or aren't? Greed is not something exclusively for the rich. So, what do you suggest BE the dominant entity in the economy?
I agree.  Greed is a human problem.  That's why it is one of the seven deadly sins.  The difference between Joe Sixpack's greed and Ken Lay's greed is practical, not ideological.  And no, not everybody is pathologically greedy, but it does take this kind of aggressive nature to ascend to the top of the corporate hierarchy.  Campaign finance reform is what we need.  Citizens should be able to vote for office-seekers without corporate money thumbing the scale and distorting the issues.  The dominant entity in a democratic republic should be the people's elected representatives.  However, those elected representatives must not be for sale to business interests.
It IS unfair.  I don't care if it's someone rich or poor, the government should not be entitled to 1/2 of what ANYONE makes. While it sounds like an interesting read, I'm lucky if I get to read the newspaper every day, much less an entire book.... I don't hate the poor.  And, despite what you think, my list of "worthy" poor is far greater than the "despicable" poor.  I've been poor and the reason WAS bad choices made by my parents.  I don't fault people who make poor decisions, I fault those who use them as an excuse to NOT even TRY to better their situations.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.  If you want to pity the 1.6% of the population eligable for the estate tax, and resent poor people, that's your trip.  Whatever blows your hair back.
Again, you're demonizing corporations.  The corporations are the ones who get the subsidies, not the CEO himself.  If the government is paying for them to send jobs overseas, isn't that the fault of the government?

Tell me you're not that naive.  I mean, jumpin' jehovah!
::)

How is saying that the government should not be entitled to 1/2 of ANYONE's $$ "pitying" the rich and "resenting" the poor?  I'm sure if the government knocked on your door and said "well, we're taking 1/2 of your $$ because you can afford it", you'd be none too happy.  I'm not that naive to what?  YOU'RE the one who said "What corporations have been doing with government subsidies is crucifying the American blue-collar economy on a cross of gold.  The government actually pays big corporations to research, set-up, and transfer operations from America to the Third World."  So, if you're saying the corporations are doing this SOLELY with government funds, then without the government funds, you must believe that they WOULDN'T so the government must be the "enabler" in this scenario....and I'M delusional ???

Oh no you don't!  This is as far as I'm going.  If you really want to know the answers, you'll go find them out by dint of your own brainpower.  If you ask me, the old noodle could use some exercise.
If it's me talking, you'll never concede to it.  It's that pride thing, you know, the last word.
::)

Oh, I see how it is now....you throw out statements and when I challenge you on what you say I think (that's incorrect), it's me "getting the last word".....you sound like so many other men on here ::)  I'll just crawl back into my little female hole and try to expand my brain larger than a pea ::)


Hmm, sometimes its how you say things.. If you mean me, I don't think that about you. You're a sharp lady. I just can't seem to say anything you don't criticize..  :-\\

I'm the one being called names in here and being told I feel and think things that I don't and I'm the one with the problem?  Please get off the martyr complex, I've dealt with enough lately.  I really don't need another one ::)


I didn't see anywhere on the board where I called you names.

Oh, I see how it is now....you throw out statements and when I challenge you on what you say I think (that's incorrect), it's me "getting the last word".....you sound like so many other men on here ::)  I'll just crawl back into my little female hole and try to expand my brain larger than a pea ::)

Crawl back into your...what?  TMI!

No need to play the sexism card, if you were "crazydad," I'd say the same thing.  Anyway, Deathrockstar is right.  You are pretty sharp.  I just think you're totally misinformed on some issues, and you're not about to cop to my point of view on any of them so I've opted out of an endless loop of point-counterpoint!

Crawl back into your...what?  TMI!

No need to play the sexism card, if you were "crazydad," I'd say the same thing.  Anyway, Deathrockstar is right.  You are pretty sharp.  I just think you're totally misinformed on some issues, and you're not about to cop to my point of view on any of them so I've opted out of an endless loop of point-counterpoint!


Deadrockstar, and its me Alex/the dude.  ;)

Deadrockstar, and its me Alex/the dude.  ;)

The dude formerly known as Dude?

The dude formerly known as Dude?


;D Actually I've changed my name to just a symbol now..

I didn't say you did, but look a few posts back, I've been called a fascist...it's been implied that I'm a nitwit among other things.  When I disagree, I'm "totally misinformed" yet when I ask for information other than OPINION, I get told "no, find it yourself" and when I try to correct assumptions about what I think, I'm "getting the last word"...when I try to tell a personal story, I'm accused of making it up.  I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. ::)

I didn't see you were a fascist.  I said by the social and political values you exhibit, you are headed in that direction along with rest of this benighted country!
:P

Don't forget "go drink your fascist Kook-aid" ::)

OK, I plead guilty, that wasn't nice of me to say!