PDA

View Full Version : Costs tax payers $300 billion to raise minimum wage...thank you REPUBLICANS



Care4all
07-29-2006, 07:52 AM
House vote raises minimum wage By Richard Cowan and Donna Smith
19 minutes ago



The House of Representatives voted on Saturday to give some of the lowest-paid American workers their first raise in nearly a decade, while also handing a big tax cut to some of the wealthiest.

The House in the early hours voted 230-180 to raise the $5.15-per-hour minimum wage in three 70-cent steps until it reaches $7.25 in mid-2009.

During a bitter floor debate, Rep. Phil English, a Pennsylvania Republican, said most Democrats' opposition to the bill showed "they've always liked the politics of the minimum wage and cared little for the policy of the minimum wage."

But Democrats shot back that Republicans had staged an election-year stunt to get a minimum wage vote knowing the Senate won't go along because of opposition there to the estate tax cut. And some senators are opposed to any minimum wage hike.

Before this election year, Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat said, "You never raised a finger to help these individuals" getting paid the minimum wage.

Coming shortly before the House was to start a five-week summer break that will give members time to campaign for re-election, the legislation also would cut estate taxes, derided by Republicans as a "death tax," and extend several other popular tax cuts. Its estimated cost was about $310 billion over 10 years.

The package is likely to be debated next week in the Senate, where its fate was unclear. Efforts to roll back estate taxes failed in the Senate in June. Such a cut is a high priority for Republican leaders ahead of the November congressional elections when Democrats hope to make big gains.

REPEATED REJECTION

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada noted the Senate has "rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again."

The estate tax cut is estimated to help less than 1 percent of American families at a time of skyrocketing federal debt.

"Workers at the lowest end of the scale are being held hostage to 7,500 families," said Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, who wanted a minimum wage increase bill without the estate tax cut.

Those 7,500 families are the number of wealthy families that would benefit from the estate tax cut. By contrast, some seven million workers would benefit from the increase in the minimum wage.

Republicans argue cutting estate taxes helps small businesses and farmers.

The bill also would renew for two years expired tax breaks for education, research, college tuition and other popular items.

For several years, Republicans controlling Congress have blocked an increase in the minimum wage, claiming it would backfire by causing employers to hire fewer entry-level workers.

But Democrats stepped up pressure this year for the increase, arguing high gasoline and heating prices were making it harder for the working poor to survive while working at wages frozen since 1997.

They were joined by dozens of moderate Republicans in the House who, facing tough re-elections in November, challenged their leaders and demanded a minimum wage vote before breaking for the summer.

Recent polls have shown broad discontent with the Republican-led House and Senate. Democrats, hoping to win control of Congress, have tried to portray an out-of-touch Republican Party that has agreed to nearly $35,000 in pay raises for members of Congress over the past decade while refusing to increase the pay for low-wage jobs.

White House spokesman Tony Snow, asked about President George W. Bush's position on the minimum wage, told reporters on Friday, "We are for minimum wage increases if they do not jeopardize the ability of small businesses to create jobs."



Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

toby
07-29-2006, 08:13 AM
I hate to see that mim wage bill get passed. Maybe it will be stopped in the Senate.

Care4all
07-29-2006, 08:16 AM
I hate to see that mim wage bill get passed. Maybe it will be stopped in the Senate.


IT is DEAD in its tracks already....thanks to the lovely and pure and moral and honest Republicans we have in office! :(

evince
07-29-2006, 08:18 AM
the stupity of the Tobes is still intact.

The R party wont be happy until American minimum wage is on par with sweat shops.

Care4all
07-29-2006, 08:21 AM
the stupity of the Tobes is still intact.

The R party wont be happy until American minimum wage is on par with sweat shops.


It's already near on par with sweat shops....

evince
07-29-2006, 08:24 AM
But those poor 7,500 families need to not pay taxes because well ....someone died.

evince
07-29-2006, 08:26 AM
They reduce issues to simplistic one line thoughts for the mentally impaired ,You know republicans.

tinfoil
07-29-2006, 08:29 AM
from the queen of simpleton that's fucking hilarious.

evince
07-29-2006, 08:31 AM
O lobve the lying right spirit , they love to change their names to try and avoid the asshole thingss they have said in the past

toby
07-29-2006, 08:32 AM
The goverment should not dictate what a business pays its employees. But the min wage is just a feel good thing anyway. Only fools, children and slackers earn min wage. If you work hard, show up on time, do your job you will make much more than min wage.

evince
07-29-2006, 08:34 AM
Lets see some statistics to prove those idiot assumptions

toby
07-29-2006, 08:38 AM
Don't have at my fingertips desh, but why don't you get a newspaper and look in the help wanted sections and see what the local McD's starting rate is! LOL

toby
07-29-2006, 08:41 AM
And note even at that rate, they say you get a raise in 30 days. It is implied that you have to come to work and do your job everyday scheduled. But even IF they started at min wage, in 30 days they would be beyond that.

evince
07-29-2006, 08:52 AM
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20050302

Now it is at your fingertips!

I didnt ask you to learn I asked you to GO LEARN you fool

Care4all
07-29-2006, 08:53 AM
The goverment should not dictate what a business pays its employees. But the min wage is just a feel good thing anyway. Only fools, children and slackers earn min wage. If you work hard, show up on time, do your job you will make much more than min wage.


That's a LIE, toby and I have posted statistics to this SEVERAL times over....

The MAJORITY of minimum wage earners are ADULTS, NOT children....

And even if they were children, why should they make less than the children of 20 years ago making minimum wage? Why shouldn't they be able to BUY what someone 10 years ago could BUY with their hourly minimum wage?

The Economy would DO MUCH BETTER if they RAISED minimum wage.....the states that have raised their minimum wage well above minimum are the states that have BETTER economies is what I just read...

so, please, please please stop with the lies and bullshit and rhetoric!

care

evince
07-29-2006, 08:53 AM
Comparing the minimum wage proposals
A new poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center shows that Americans overwhelmingly support an increase in the minimum wage: 82% said it was an important priority and only 6% opposed an increase. The minimum wage is a popular issue because Americans believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to earn a decent wage, whether they're a young worker trying to earn money for college or a single mother supporting a family. The minimum wage is about fairness, the value of work, and the opportunities that work provides.

Despite its importance and popularity, lawmakers have not made raising the minimum wage a priority and have let its purchasing power fall every year since 1997. The minimum wage is now worth no more than it was before the last federal increase and worth less than in all but two of the last 48 years. Its value is lower relative to the average wage than it has been since the 1950s.



The last minimum wage increase, from $4.25 to $5.15 in 1996-97, improved the earnings of 9.9 million workers, or 8.9% of the workforce. Because it did so without negative economic consequences, it provided a useful benchmark for crafting a successful minimum wage package. A proposal in the same vein by several senators earlier this year would raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 in three steps over two years. This proposal would directly raise the wages of 7.3 million workers (5.8% of the workforce), and would therefore be likely to have an even smaller effect on the economy than the last federal increase while still having significant benefits for working families.

Last week, Senator Rick Santorum (R.-Pa.) announced an alternative plan—raising the federal minimum wage to $6.25 over the next two years. While an improvement over the current level, $6.25 would still be an inadequate federal wage floor. It would directly affect fewer than one-fourth the number of workers than an increase to $7.25, benefiting only 1.4% of the workforce. It would also fail to restore the purchasing power of the minimum wage to its 1997 level.

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 09:02 AM
IT is DEAD in its tracks already....thanks to the lovely and pure and moral and honest Republicans we have in office! :(
Poison Pill is the relevant phrase, I think.

Looks like any increase to the minimum wage will have to wait until next year -- or 2009, depending on the outcome of the midterm elections.

evince
07-29-2006, 09:08 AM
And the Rs will lie about why it didnt pass all election cycle

toby
07-29-2006, 09:13 AM
Desh your link has nothing to do with your statement.

Care, I didn't say that all min wage earners were kids, I included slackers and fools.

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 09:14 AM
And the Rs will lie about why it didnt pass all election cycle
Of course. That's why they're doing it, for the most part.

toby
07-29-2006, 09:17 AM
Why would R's lie about it? Some support it and some don't. No need to lie. Get a grip Desh.

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 09:20 AM
Why would R's lie about it? Some support it and some don't. No need to lie. Get a grip Desh.
They will use it as grist for the spin mill, of course. They will use it in order to be able to claim to audiences: "See? The Democrats don't really support raising the minimum wage. They voted against it!" It's the same thing that was done to Kerry: lying by omission.

Topspin
07-29-2006, 09:21 AM
It can't imagine dems not throwing this in there face in the midterms.
Republican false concern over minimum wage. It should be a hit

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 09:30 AM
It can't imagine dems not throwing this in there face in the midterms.
Republican false concern over minimum wage. It should be a hitI agree with you. I think that the Brand R marketing guys popped a public boner on this one. Brand D should be able to exploit that.

toby
07-29-2006, 09:41 AM
Seems to me the news protrays it exactly the opposite of you libs suggest. They say the R's cant give the poor downtrodden a break without a huge tax cut for the rich and insentive. LOL For instance this very post. So who lies? R's??? LOL Why do you libs need to make fake distorted claims?

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 09:55 AM
Seems to me the news protrays it exactly the opposite of you libs suggest. They say the R's cant give the poor downtrodden a break without a huge tax cut for the rich and insentive. LOL For instance this very post. So who lies? R's??? LOL Why do you libs need to make fake distorted claims?
Desh was talking about the R's intent, Toby. She didn't say that they'd succeed.

Whenever a politician does something like this, the intelligent person must ask him or her self why. What were they hoping to gain? Doesn't matter whether the pol in question has an (R) or a (D).

In this case, the R's hoped to gain one of two things. First, those who believe in cutting taxes had an outside chance of getting more tax cuts pushed through by (dishonestly) linking it to an unrelated, popular item. Unlikely, but worth a shot, from their point of view. Secondly, just as Desh suggested, they believed that if the D's declined to swallow the bill -- because of aforesaid poison pill -- they could then turn around and use that fact against the D's.

That was the thinking, I believe. Fortunately, I also believe that they screwed up this time. People aren't going to buy it.

evince
07-29-2006, 09:59 AM
The Paris Hiltons of the world will be deprived of a tax break and Tobes will cry for their suffering tonight.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:02 AM
But the argument that Care and Desh are trying to make is invalid. The bill is there, vote yes or no and say why you voted that way. That is what politics is all about. To say it is a lie or a trick or something like that is just silly.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:04 AM
I understand Paris Hilton has a trust account and so she is immune from estate taxes already.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:06 AM
But even if Paris was subject to the estate tax, I think she is a slut and a whore and a degenerate. but I don't think the govement should take her money away just because she has alot of it.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:07 AM
But to be truthfull, I would like to see her having to live on min wage. But....LOL

FUCK THE POLICE
07-29-2006, 10:09 AM
Care, that's misleading. The income tax is probably about 10 or 20 trillion over 10 years. I hate whenever people give out these "over 10 years" statistics to try to make people think somethings a bigger cost than it really is.

Cypress
07-29-2006, 10:10 AM
Why do Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchis, and the children of Bill Gates and George Soros need more estate tax cuts?

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 10:11 AM
But the argument that Care and Desh are trying to make is invalid. The bill is there, vote yes or no and say why you voted that way. That is what politics is all about. To say it is a lie or a trick or something like that is just silly.
No it is not. One can lie while stating things that are factually accurate: surely you've figured that out by now. Karl Rove is a master of the art.

One does this by innuendo. You state something that is factually correct, but in a manner and context with implications that lead people to an incorrect conclusion. Yes, that is indeed lying. Look it up.

It's in this sense that we say that Bush lied about the intelligence (sic) supporting his invasion of Iraq, for example.

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 10:19 AM
But even if Paris was subject to the estate tax, I think she is a slut and a whore and a degenerate. but I don't think the govement should take her money away just because she has alot of it.
Being a "slut" is her best quality. The money is what makes her despicible. :p

She didn't earn it and has no particular right to it, save that the wealthy want to protect their dynastic aspirations. As far as I'm concerned, the government should strip her of everything except, say, 5 or 6 million. She'd still be so well off that any complaint would be stupid whining.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:19 AM
The billionaries don't pay estate taxes anyway. They have trust accounts, massive lawyers on the payroll to avoid taxes. So stop the crap that they are getting a tax break.

Why should a family be taxed for someone dying? Because they have too much money?

toby
07-29-2006, 10:22 AM
Ornot read the orginal post. That was misleading and not done by a R was it? So who is lying here?

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 10:23 AM
The billionaries don't pay estate taxes anyway. They have trust accounts, massive lawyers on the payroll to avoid taxes. So stop the crap that they are getting a tax break.

Why should a family be taxed for someone dying? Because they have too much money?
Because we, as a society, have a legitimate interest in preventing the growth of an hereditary aristocracy. That's what estate taxes are for. That, and lessening the tax burden on everyone else of course.

Estate taxes are a win-win proposition.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:24 AM
I disagree Ormot, she has a right to her money if her family left it to her. But she will not pay any estate taxes anyway, her trust fund is already set up.

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 10:26 AM
I disagree Ormot, she has a right to her money if her family left it to her. But she will not pay any estate taxes anyway, her trust fund is already set up.
What "right"? Why does she have any such "right"?

The only thing that gives her such a right is the law. Period.

And we need to change the law to go after those trust funds. And sub-chapter S corporations. Oh yeah.

toby
07-29-2006, 10:27 AM
If as you say>>>have a legitimate interest in preventing the growth of an hereditary aristocracy.

Then why wait till the die, take Bill Gates money now, Strip the Walton family, The Kennedy's have way to much money............

Care4all
07-29-2006, 10:29 AM
The billionaries don't pay estate taxes anyway. They have trust accounts, massive lawyers on the payroll to avoid taxes. So stop the crap that they are getting a tax break.

Why should a family be taxed for someone dying? Because they have too much money?

because a GREAT DEAL of this money HAS NEVER BEEN TAXED....look it up...it has been sheltered from taxes during the dead man's life, now upon death, the taxes are paid that were never paid, that is, after the first $2.5 million, which is exempt from ever having been taxed....

toby
07-29-2006, 10:33 AM
The money was taxed when it was made and any income it makes is taxed.

evince
07-29-2006, 10:34 AM
He talks as if the tax takes it all and leaves them nothing.

The money was earned because of the infrastructure of America!
guess who used it the most,me or Sam Walton?

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 10:48 AM
If as you say>>>have a legitimate interest in preventing the growth of an hereditary aristocracy.

Then why wait till the die, take Bill Gates money now, Strip the Walton family, The Kennedy's have way to much money............
That's what income taxes are for. Look that up too: redistribution of wealth has been part of the intent of income taxes from the very beginning.

Unfortunately, income taxes have been gelded these past 50 years or so. More and more they've been modified to favor the rich instead of hobbling them. This neither surprises me nor makes me give up on the idea. As I've said often, these things tend to be cyclic . . . and we're due for a long, slow swing of the pendulum back my way. In fact, I think it's already begun: the informational noise from Bush's wars of aggression tend to mask what's going on.

Do the Kennedies have "too much money?" Yes, they do. More correctly, they have too much power and status. So does the Bush clan. it's high time to prune that back.

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 10:50 AM
He talks as if the tax takes it all and leaves them nothing.

That's the Repuke way. In fact, it's become the conservative's way, as often as not. False dichotomies are the staple of their platform(s).

toby
07-29-2006, 10:53 AM
I disagree Ornot, income tax was not designed to redistrubite wealth to instead a way for the goverment to pay for services provided. Those are two different concepts. And the tax was on earning, not assets. Another big difference. The devil is in the details isn't it? LOL

toby
07-29-2006, 10:55 AM
No Desh, I didn't say anything like that. Why do you need to distort the facts?

toby
07-29-2006, 10:57 AM
The liberal way, compelely distorting the facts and make everything a lie. Way to go Desh!

evince
07-29-2006, 10:58 AM
The money was earned because of the infrastructure of America!
guess who used it the most,me or Sam Walton?


I said as if idiot not he said.

toby
07-29-2006, 11:11 AM
Silly desh, he also paid more taxes and employed more people and proved to be a much better asset to the US than you did.

evince
07-29-2006, 11:13 AM
Just how much taxes did he pay tobes , lets see numbers?

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 11:16 AM
I disagree Ornot, income tax was not designed to redistrubite wealth to instead a way for the goverment to pay for services provided. Those are two different concepts. And the tax was on earning, not assets. Another big difference. The devil is in the details isn't it? LOL
I suggest, then, that you look into the public debate in 1894-95, 1913 and 1935. Those are the episodes during which our modern system of income taxation evolved. You'll find the very phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "shifting the [tax] burden to the wealthy" prominent in all three.

Regardless of original intent, my intent, and that of many leftists and liberals, is to restrict the ability to amass dynastic wealth. Many of the framers of our constitution shared my horror of that phenomenon, and my concern that it's a natural tendency in market economies.

toby
07-29-2006, 12:20 PM
Most of the framers were very wealthy, how many gave up thier wealth? LOL

OrnotBitwise
07-29-2006, 01:52 PM
LMAO! Desh was exactly right: the dumbest cons do indeed believe that this nonsense somehow "proves" that the Dims don't support raising the minimum wage.

I trust that we can all agree that Wanking Republican Loser over that the "other" site counts as a con? Okay, check this out:

http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=20575

Cypress
07-29-2006, 01:56 PM
No more tax cuts for paris hilton.

Dems should try to pass a mimimum wage bill when and if they controll congress in 06 or 08.

Topspin
07-29-2006, 01:59 PM
because if you want to help the little guy you gotta negotiate and give a little, which the turbo-libs won't do. They want to keep the poor man down.

FUCK THE POLICE
07-29-2006, 01:59 PM
because a GREAT DEAL of this money HAS NEVER BEEN TAXED....look it up...it has been sheltered from taxes during the dead man's life, now upon death, the taxes are paid that were never paid, that is, after the first $2.5 million, which is exempt from ever having been taxed....

An easier solution would be to remove tax shelters...

Cypress
07-29-2006, 02:07 PM
there's no money for further tax cuts for millionaires. bush has plunged us into deep, structural, long-term deficits.

Your kids, will be paying the interest on the debt to make sure Paris Hilton gets her bush tax cuts.

klaatu
07-29-2006, 03:49 PM
I believe corporate America forces this type of regulation by not doing the right thing which would be to institute their own fair min.wage. Paying 5.15 an hour in this day in age is ridiculous. I read or saw somewhere where Walmart would only need to raise their prices .01 on all their products to give all their hourly employees a 1.00 raise.
The fact there is still Wealthy National Franchises out there still paying out $5.15 an hour tells the story, they brought the regulation upon themselves. They pushed the envelope.
In this day in age of out of control greed ... it is neccessary.

Topspin
07-29-2006, 04:24 PM
Hahhah, dems can't give the little guy a wage hike. But they sure as hell can get themselves a 35,000 raise. LOL yeah they have princible that shoots your Paris hilton whinne down the drain

tinfoil
07-29-2006, 06:30 PM
They are such hypocrites. It's funny to see the idiots here defending this. They really don't care about the poor, they just have an irrational envy of the rich.

evince
07-29-2006, 06:51 PM
you people are just as dishonest as the R congress

Topspin
07-29-2006, 08:26 PM
Desh, your boys voted for a $35,000 year raise more than the average salary of the poor guy you love to fight for. So why couldn't the give the tax cut to get the min wage increased if they could vote themselves such an assinine raise?

Care4all
07-29-2006, 08:53 PM
Desh, your boys voted for a $35,000 year raise more than the average salary of the poor guy you love to fight for. So why couldn't the give the tax cut to get the min wage increased if they could vote themselves such an assinine raise? a handful of Democrats voted for their raises but not the majority of Democrats as was implied.

And the Democrats WILL PASS the minimum wage come November, ON ITS OWN, and without it costing the American tax payer $300 billion in less revenues to pay for this war and the future wars on the horizon due to this administration's policies, and for the medicare pill bill costs of the looming baby boomers and for securing Social Security and for paying our $350 BILLION a year interest payment on our National Dept aproaching $10-11 TRILLION with this Republican President and Congress....Which is DOUBLE our entire history of president's national debts acrued...for our 200 year history it added up to $5.4 trillion.... before it was handed over to bush...

They are spending like there is NO TOMORROW....we can't let them have this tax cut for the wealthiest and also for their biggest campaign donors because it will continue to tell Congress that they can spend, spend, spend via borrowing and give their tax cuts to their contributors too...
have their cake and eat it too....

and this is a wrong message to continue to send to this Congress....imho.

AnyOldIron
07-29-2006, 09:08 PM
The goverment should not dictate what a business pays its employees. But the min wage is just a feel good thing anyway. Only fools, children and slackers earn min wage. If you work hard, show up on time, do your job you will make much more than min wage.

Didn't you say that you are on welfare toby?

Topspin
07-30-2006, 12:28 PM
care4 I sure as shit hope you are right and they pass a $10hr min wage in Nov without a giveaway to the rich which would mean they are in power. Right now they aren't and the only reason the cons offered it up was to get their beloved tax cut which doen's affect the life of a min wage earner. Just affect turbo-libs who are rich haters.
Be real about the raises, dems have never blocked a congressional pay raise. Both parties are guilty of screwing us on that one. Dems could have filibustered. $35,000 is more than a regular Joe makes in a year. And Nancy Pelosi has the nerve to talk about corp america.

TheDanold
07-31-2006, 07:43 AM
One of the things I noted when I worked for minimum wage at McDonald's, was that very few people actually really made minimum wage. (Small) Raises came quickly within months and this obviously made it clear that any company can and will pay more than minimum wage on it's own.
The thing is that if minimum wage were to go away, most businesses couldn't pay anything less. If McDonald's decided to all of a sudden pay a dollar less per hour, than employess would quit and work at Subway for example. There are always plenty of low wage jobs at any time in America in the last 20 years. Thus businesses are bound by a free labor market to pay what they have to, to keep a staff, which is why most pay more than minimum wage anyway.

The other thing to note is wages are expenses that are included in anything a business sells. Less wages even if they did exist would equal lower cost of living. For extreme areas where there are not even many low-wage jobs available (very rare), would probably lower wages slightly but at the same time unemployment would be non-existant as the business can afford to hire more.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-28-99.html
http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/regulation/in-depth/

Check it out, even the average for fast-food cooks (burger flippers) pays well above minimum wage:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P78253.asp

England had no minimum wage for years, then Blair put one in even though their was no cry for it, just because it made Labor nervous that government didn't have that control. Predicatably putting it in had no real impact, as businesses which were already paying more for employees they had to compete for.

It is a harmful regulation where jobs are scarce (as unemployment increases) and a useless regulation where they aren't (as people are paid more anyways), Either or both ways, it should go. Repeal the federal minimum wage. Petition your rep for this today.

TheDanold
07-31-2006, 07:46 AM
a handful of Democrats voted for their raises but not the majority of Democrats as was implied.

And the Democrats WILL PASS the minimum wage come November, ON ITS OWN, and without it costing the American tax payer $300 billion in less revenues to pay for this war and the future wars on the horizon due to this administration's policies, and for the medicare pill bill costs of the looming baby boomers and for securing Social Security and for paying our $350 BILLION a year interest payment on our National Dept aproaching $10-11 TRILLION with this Republican President and Congress....Which is DOUBLE our entire history of president's national debts acrued...for our 200 year history it added up to $5.4 trillion.... before it was handed over to bush...

They are spending like there is NO TOMORROW....we can't let them have this tax cut for the wealthiest and also for their biggest campaign donors because it will continue to tell Congress that they can spend, spend, spend via borrowing and give their tax cuts to their contributors too...
have their cake and eat it too....

and this is a wrong message to continue to send to this Congress....imho.

Well... what have the Democrats promised to cut? NOTHING
What is the Dems biggest priority? Near trillion dollar universal healthcare.

As the Repubs moved left, the Dems moved lefter....it's beyond naive to think that a party of Liberals would really spend less than whatever the Republicans were spending. It can ALWAYS get worse.

Care4all
07-31-2006, 08:08 AM
Well... what have the Democrats promised to cut? NOTHING
What is the Dems biggest priority? Near trillion dollar universal healthcare.

As the Repubs moved left, the Dems moved lefter....it's beyond naive to think that a party of Liberals would really spend less than whatever the Republicans were spending. It can ALWAYS get worse.
Adding $5-6 TRILLION, when all is said and done, via the Republican/Administration's policies... to the national Debt in just 8 years can NOT GET ANY WORSE, and never has been WORSE in our history!

There ARE NO EXCUSES to what they have done....there is no "could be WORSE".

Care4all
07-31-2006, 08:12 AM
And let me ask you this regarding healthcare...because I am really torn on this and want to understand the conservative view on this....

Why are republicans against universal healthcare, when it is a cash cow giveaway to the beloved capitalistic corporations?

Giving corporations a better chance to compete in their beloved Global Economy?

care

evince
07-31-2006, 08:14 AM
Dems have historuically spent less than Rs

Damocles
07-31-2006, 08:17 AM
And let me ask you this regarding healthcare...because I am really torn on this and want to understand the conservative view on this....

Why are republicans against universal healthcare, when it is a cash cow giveaway to the beloved capitalistic corporations?

Giving corporations a better chance to compete in their beloved Global Economy?

care

Because most of us realize that the easiest way to triple the cost for something is to have the Government provide it...

Centralizing health care is definitely not the best solution if you want to actually keep costs down. When you look at tax dollars as if they are your actual money you tend to disagree with most government programs. Hence the R disgust with the Pill Bill even from the first, unfortunately Congress went along...

This idea that all Rs love to have government giveaways to corporations is a myth.

evince
07-31-2006, 08:20 AM
http://www.progress.org/2006/corpw42.htm


read up

Care4all
07-31-2006, 08:24 AM
Care, that's misleading. The income tax is probably about 10 or 20 trillion over 10 years. I hate whenever people give out these "over 10 years" statistics to try to make people think somethings a bigger cost than it really is.

For your information "little one"(j/k u), that is how our budgets are calculated and projected in the government....these are government calculations that are procedural and mandatory.

the same occurs in business, you have a 5 or ten year plan, (at my job it was a 5 year plan) and a yearly plan on how you can get to the 5 year plan, and a monthy plan on how you can get to the yearly plan....etc.

to look at and plan just a year at a time.... IS NOT AN OPTION.....ever!

care

Care4all
07-31-2006, 08:31 AM
Because most of us realize that the easiest way to triple the cost for something is to have the Government provide it...

Centralizing health care is definitely not the best solution if you want to actually keep costs down. When you look at tax dollars as if they are your actual money you tend to disagree with most government programs. Hence the R disgust with the Pill Bill even from the first, unfortunately Congress went along...

This idea that all Rs love to have government giveaways to corporations is a myth.


THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN MEDICARE PILL BILL....it was not even CLOSE to the Democratic Pill Bill....

The Republicans were NEVER against the pill bill and they got JUST WHAT THEY WANTED, and got the corporate welfare that they wanted given to their cash cow Pharma and Insurance friends....(you might have disagreed with it but not them, they wanted the votes, they wanted to "do in" the Dems by taking credit for this issue, they did it for a number of reasons, but NOT IN ANY WAY did they do it to help the citizens of our country battle their healthcare costs, because they just added trillions to our taxes due in the future.)

you still really did not answer my question on helping corporations compete in the global market place.....perhaps increasing our jobs in this country...thus taking in more revenues for the feds?

stop being intellectually dishonest on this

Damocles
07-31-2006, 08:38 AM
THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN MEDICARE PILL BILL....it was not even CLOSE to the Democratic Pill Bill....

And almost every R that I know is unhappy with it. This was a "Compassionate Conservative" giveaway and is the first thing that any R will say that they are unhappy with what Bush has done, even during the last election.



The Republicans were NEVER against the pill bill and they got JUST WHAT THEY WANTED, and got the corporate welfare that they wanted given to their cash cow Pharma and Insurance friends....(you might have disagreed with it but not them, they wanted the votes, they wanted to "do in" the Dems by taking credit for this issue, they did it for a number of reasons, but NOT IN ANY WAY did they do it to help the citizens of our country battle their healthcare costs, because they just added trillions to our taxes due in the future.)


Once again, other than Congress and the "Compassionate Conservative" President I have yet to hear one R speak positively of that Pill Bill.



you still really did not answer my question on helping corporations compete in the global market place.....perhaps increasing our jobs in this country...thus taking in more revenues for the feds?

stop being intellectually dishonest on this
I am not being intellectually dishonest. I am being perfectly clear. You have to be deliberate to ignore my points to say things like, "Rs all LOVED this bill!"... No they didn't. The Rs in Congress followed the President and have been attempting to promote it as a good thing because they voted for it. Talk to the rank and file Rs, the ones that I speak about, they didn't like it, didn't want it, and are unhappy with it overall....

And I do not believe that our Corporations need the governments help to compete, they do fine without it.

Care4all
07-31-2006, 08:50 AM
And almost every R that I know is unhappy with it. This was a "Compassionate Conservative" giveaway and is the first thing that any R will say that they are unhappy with what Bush has done, even during the last election.



Once again, other than Congress and the "Compassionate Conservative" President I have yet to hear one R speak positively of that Pill Bill.


I am not being intellectually dishonest. I am being perfectly clear. You have to be deliberate to ignore my points to say things like, "Rs all LOVED this bill!"... No they didn't. The Rs in Congress followed the President and have been attempting to promote it as a good thing because they voted for it. Talk to the rank and file Rs, the ones that I speak about, they didn't like it, didn't want it, and are unhappy with it overall....

And I do not believe that our Corporations need the governments help to compete, they do fine without it.


Damo, I apologize...I thought you were Dano when I first replied and he and I have been arguing over this Pill Bill and how he views it ....for a few years now....and seems like an eternity.... hahahaha!

care

thank you for your response, now I need Dano to answer those same questions I thru at you! ;)

care