Proof! Dems Don't Like Poor; Simply Hate Rich!!! - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

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

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Absolutely Adequate » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:13 pm

I'm confused. Clear something up for me.

StlSluggers wrote: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.
Absolutely Adequate
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 5000
Joined: 6 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Not here.

Postby j_d_mcnugent » Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:44 pm

Coppermine wrote: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.
j_d_mcnugent
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe Ranker
Posts: 3766
Joined: 1 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: bored at work

Postby AcidRock23 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:08 pm

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



*applause* ;-D
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby Coppermine » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:12 pm

StlSluggers wrote: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.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby Fireball Express » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:08 pm

$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.
Image
Fireball Express
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2516
Joined: 17 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Basking in the Sunshine

Postby Coppermine » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:35 pm

Fireball Express wrote:$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.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Coppermine
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar

Posts: 8840
Joined: 6 Sep 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pennsyltucky

Postby 5 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:53 pm

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.
5
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2296
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby JTWood » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:47 pm

Absolutely Adequate wrote:I'm confused. Clear something up for me.

StlSluggers wrote: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.

Definition of 'ploy' wrote: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?

Absolutely Adequate wrote: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.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

Postby Madison » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:06 am

Fireball Express wrote:$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. ;-D

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.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Postby JTWood » Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:51 am

Madison wrote: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.
Image
JTWood
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle EyeWeb Supporter
Posts: 11508
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Unincorporated Heaven

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Aug. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Seattle at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Texas at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Colorado at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
LA Angels at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Francisco at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
NY Yankees at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Chi White Sox
(8:10 pm)
Toronto at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(8:15 pm)
Kansas City at Oakland
(9:35 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(9:40 pm)
Chi Cubs at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
Atlanta at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact