Proof! Dems Don't Like Poor; Simply Hate Rich!!!

[Absolutely Adequate]

I'm confused. Clear something up for me.

As to your ploy comment, AA, of course it's a ploy. Aren't they all? I didn't realize I needed to concede that separately, as I figured it was a given.

If you knew it was a political ploy and not a real attempt at compromise, why did you start this topic in the first place? And why give it such an incendiary title?

Anyway, we haven't even talked about the most odious part of the bill. 8 states require businesses to pay waiters the minimum wage currently; this bill would make those laws illegal. In other words, this would be a giant wage cut for waiters in California, Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. I'm sure, though, Paris Hilton would appreciate the GOP's generosity.

[j_d_mcnugent]

The estate tax, as I understand it, and simply put, is that when a really rich guy dies and leaves his huge, expensive estate to family, it's taxed by the government. Sort of like "you don't get anything for free" kind of thing. I agree it's a little shorthanded, but come on, these estates aren't cheap. I mean I don't know how much the government taxes you when your redneck Uncle Ned leaves you his dilapidated mobile home, but it seems like a small price to pay on millions of dollars inherited on property and assets.

thats basically it except that the proposal mostly benefits the middle/upper middle class and not the super rich. currently about 2% of estates are subject to estate tax, but barring a market crash the baby boomers would push that number quite a bit higher. the proposal was to bump up the threshold to 5mm individual/10mm couple from its current 2/4 level. an increase in the threshold is necessary if you wanted to just tax the top 2% of estates (ie make sure you are just taxing the really rich).


basically, it boils down to deciding whether the accumulated wealth of the baby boomer generation should be used to pay down the national debt or to pass on to the next generation.

[AcidRock23]

It's abundantly clear by now that it's time for a third party to be given some serious consideration.

*applause*

[Coppermine]

As to your ploy comment, AA, of course it's a ploy. Aren't they all? I didn't realize I needed to concede that separately, as I figured it was a given.

Anyways, if you guys want to get something right, don't tell me that the Republicans are selling out when they are still getting something for themselves. That's smart politics on their part, and I can admire anyone for making a smart move when an opportunity presents itself.

OK, I'm seeing the different sides of this and I agree with all of you at least to a degree. I understand, as much as just about anyone else, that very rarely is any issue black/white or even liberal/conservative.

This comment though I'm having trouble with; while this was a "ploy" by the republicans, you say that it's smart politics by trying to get something you want out of an opportunity presenting itself. I agree, but this is just a deliberate attempt to make democrats look bad... they knew it wouldn't be approved. Now if it's smart politics, I disagree. Perhaps it is to die hard Republicans but I'm relatively on the fence, and something like this makes me a little disgusted. Not that democrats do much better, but Frist and Santorum today are whining and pointing fingers at democrats like they're the bad guys for, as the title of this thread suggests, not caring about the poor; just hating the rich. What is that supposed to do, turn more rich people against the democrats?

Besides, last I checked, other than minorities, many lower class Americans vote republican anyway. And we all know they're not going to win the minority vote anytime soon.

I just don't understand it, it seems desperate to me. And hasn't Santorum made enough of an ass out of himself? He's already regarded as the most up-for-grabs seat in the senate; just a few weeks ago he held a press conference to announce WMD's were found in Iraq, only to have the DoD AND the White House reject his claims.

Santorum is desperate, and this just makes it that much more obvious.

[Fireball Express]

$7 and change for minimum wage. Geesh, I can train a chimp to do the work for less. I'd be forced to hire less part timers (read: kids who work for gas and beer money) and would have to put a larger burden of the work on the existing staff as well as myself. A raising of minimum wage would be an attack on small businesses. I wouldn't be suprised if some small businesses shut down as a result. Then there would be less competition coupled with the higher cost of labor resulting in higher retail prices.



What's so wrong about lowering the estate tax? That money has been taxed already. Just b/c it changes hands you don't need to tax it again.

[Coppermine]

$7 and change for minimum wage. Geesh, I can train a chimp to do the work for less. I'd be forced to hire less part timers (read: kids who work for gas and beer money) and would have to put a larger burden of the work on the existing staff as well as myself. A raising of minimum wage would be an attack on small businesses. I wouldn't be suprised if some small businesses shut down as a result. Then there would be less competition coupled with the higher cost of labor resulting in higher retail prices.



What's so wrong about lowering the estate tax? That money has been taxed already. Just b/c it changes hands you don't need to tax it again.

Those two points pretty much sum up how republicans feel; and I agree as well. So why are republicans suddenly ready to compromise on the minimum wage increase (flip flop anyone, if you want to use some conservative rhetoric) in exchange for repealing the estate tax? Simple; they knew democrats would reject it.

Politics are so retarded.

[5]

I just want to clear something up here.

Rebublicans, at least the ones involved with the current administration, are not pro small business...at least as far as the agency is concerned. I know several people that work/worked for the SBA - an agency that programs such as BD - small Business Development, Disaster Relief, 8a - minority. Once Bush came to power, there was a sea change, i.e. unqualified people were placed in extremely high positions there to effectively dismantle the agency. It's pretty sad.

This is what their mission is:
Maintain and strengthen the nation's economy by aiding, counseling, assisting and protecting the interests of small businesses and by helping families and businesses recover from national disasters.

I can't get into any specifics but what's happening is quite the opposite.

[JTWood]

I'm confused. Clear something up for me.

As to your ploy comment, AA, of course it's a ploy. Aren't they all? I didn't realize I needed to concede that separately, as I figured it was a given.

If you knew it was a political ploy and not a real attempt at compromise, why did you start this topic in the first place? And why give it such an incendiary title?

It was a ploy by the Republicans to make the Dems make a choice about compromising. I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.

a way of achieving something, especially a clever or dishonest way.

So it was a ploy by the Republicans to get the Democrats to compromise on this issue in a way that still benefited their interests. Isn't that what I've been saying this whole time?

Anyway, we haven't even talked about the most odious part of the bill. 8 states require businesses to pay waiters the minimum wage currently; this bill would make those laws illegal. In other words, this would be a giant wage cut for waiters in California, Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. I'm sure, though, Paris Hilton would appreciate the GOP's generosity.

That does seem unnecessary, doesn't it?

Question to anyone reading this thread: What was the limit at which the estate tax kicked in back in the 90s before the Republicans ever changed it?

I ask because I was under the impression that I benefited from this estate tax law since I don't have an estate worth $5 million. I was also under the impression that, until the Republicans changed it, I was not exempt. I tried looking around for that info, but no one seems to have anything except commentary on the current state of the law.

[Madison]

$7 and change for minimum wage. Geesh, I can train a chimp to do the work for less. I'd be forced to hire less part timers (read: kids who work for gas and beer money) and would have to put a larger burden of the work on the existing staff as well as myself. A raising of minimum wage would be an attack on small businesses. I wouldn't be suprised if some small businesses shut down as a result. Then there would be less competition coupled with the higher cost of labor resulting in higher retail prices.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the proposed raise itself.

40%? Way, way, way, way, way, way too much to say the least. Quite a few small business owners would be crushed by a rate hike like that.

I have no problems if the government wishes to give a reasonable raise to minimum wage workers, but 40% is crazy. I'd have voted against that bill had the proposed raise stood all by itself without the extra rider about estate tax.

[JTWood]

40%? Way, way, way, way, way, way too much to say the least. Quite a few small business owners would be crushed by a rate hike like that.

I have no problems if the government wishes to give a reasonable raise to minimum wage workers, but 40% is crazy. I'd have voted against that bill had the proposed raise stood all by itself without the extra rider about estate tax.

Yeah, 40% - even over three years - seems excessive. If we have to have a minimum wage, I wish Congress would just set it, tie it to inflation or the cost of living, and then be done with it. That would rid us of this ridiculous fighting every 10-15 years and businesses would be better able to plan for the future instead of worrying about what an unpredictable congress might do.