Do they think we are CRAZY ???? Are we?
Hey Folks,
I just wrote an essay ( http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/05/trouble-making-truth-tellers.html ) that spoke to "why experts - if they know so much - never agree on anything." Here is what I said:
"Even if one side of an issue is seriously struggling to find the truth, the other side isn’t listening; instead, they’re actively working to AVOID the truth. At best, one side wants to overcome ignorance for the greater good of mankind; the other side – selfishly benefiting from that ignorance – wants to keep it that way. It is a struggle, but it is neither a dialogue nor an investigation; it is not colaborative. It is a tug of war; and the Dark Side believes: all’s fair in tug and war. It’s Henry Clay turned upside down: “I’d rather be President than right.”
No sooner had I posted this than the Columbus Dispatch provided the perfect evidence for my assertion. As they periodically do, they posed a question ( "Should the estate tax be ended by Congress?") and then provided two different writers' "answer" to the question. What they provided proves the point of my earlier essay.
One writer, Mark Weisbrot (directly below) discussed the matter, providing specific facts relevant to making an informed decision aimed at the well-being of almost all the people (99.7% of us).
The other dispicable beast, James L. Martin, filled his full-page column spewing shit designed to convince us that giving a break to the top 0.3% of taxpayers was crucial to the well-being of Blacks, seniors, farmers, small businesses, families, and - need I say - DEAD people!
This son-of-a-bitch says he's "been hammering away at this simple bit of logic [sic] for the past 15 years, trying to honor Ronald Reagan." Yeah, and trying to dishonor honesty and 99.7% of Americans too.
Folks, this is clear as glass!! This is the shit we are fed, and if we refuse to see it, I guess we desrve it on our menue. This beast, James Martin, makes a good living spreading manure on the trusting American populace. He says that selling us on selling out our birthright for the good of the elite 0.3% "has been a Sysyphean struggle" (that's good). He calls it a "terrible burden" that the top 0.3% of wealthy Americans are required to pay an inheritance tax (i.e. the wealthy, LIVING, 0.3% of Americans are required to pay - not the dead ones who earned the money).
I find it reprehensible that the Dispatch would allow such crap equal time with the truth. Moreover, it is totally depressing to consider that anyone in the 99.7% of people being propagandized might buy into the bullshit.
Hey Folks, it's all right here directly below. Check it out for yourself.
- Uke Man
Should estate tax be ended by Congress?
No: Despite the rhetoric, data clearly show this would help only wealthiest Americans
Monday, May 08, 2006 - MARK WEISBROT
"Money to get power, and power to guard the money," was the motto of the powerful Medici family in 16 thcentury Florence. It is getting to be a successful modern political strategy for some of America’s wealthiest families.
A report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy shows how 18 of these families, including the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, spent millions of dollars to push for the repeal of the federal estate tax, which is paid by wealthy heirs when they receive inherited wealth. Using trade associations and influential lobbyists, these extremely rich families stand to gain an astounding $71 billion from the repeal.
In the next month or so, the White House and Republican leaders are hoping to eliminate the estate tax permanently.
About 99.7 percent of Americans are not rich enough to be affected by the estate tax. The existing exemptions allow their heirs to get whatever is left to them without paying any taxes. But that other 0.3 percent increasingly find themselves in the role of "the deciders."
Proponents of repeal have gone to great lengths to persuade people that the tax is a threat to small businesses and farms. The story of people having to sell the family farm to pay the tax was getting fairly good play until Pulitzer-Prize-winning New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston found that there were no verifiable instances of this actually happening, despite President Bush’s insistence that "to keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax." Death tax is the scary-sounding name that Republicans invented for the estate tax.
Repealing the estate tax is consistent with the overall thrust of President Bush’s "ownership society," where the rules are tilted ever more favorably toward owners, especially the big ones.
One goal seems to be to rewrite the tax code so that owners of wealth do not pay taxes on the income that their wealth generates. Lowering the tax on capital gains primarily has benefited rich people. The same is true for cutting the tax on stock dividends. Only about half of Americans hold stocks, and for those who do, it is generally through retirement accounts, which are unaffected by stock-dividend tax cuts.
Many people think that such changes don’t affect them if they are not rich. But because the government does not stop spending money, the overwhelming majority of Americans who get their income from labor rather than ownership will end up paying more taxes so that wealthy people can pay less.
Repealing the estate tax would be another big step in this program, costing the Treasury about $1 trillion in the first decade.
A few months ago, Congress seemed ready to repeal the estate tax. But the anger over rising gasoline prices in the face of record oil-company profits has begun to hurt President Bush. Coming on the heels of a succession of scandals and a deeply unpopular war, the gasoline controversy has driven Bush’s approval rating down to a personal worst of 33 percent and has begun to weigh on the Republican Party’s prospects for the November congressional elections.
Do the Republicans really want to add another trillion dollars to the future national debt in an election year, just so a handful of rich families can pass even more wealth to their children? Only if they can do it when no one is looking.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Readers may write him at CEPR, 1621 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20009-1052. Distributed by Knight Ridder/ Tribune Information Services.
weisbrot@cepr.net
Should estate tax be ended by Congress?
Yes: This legacy of wartime need has become an impediment to good business
Monday, May 08, 2006 - JAMES L. MARTIN
In the interest of fairness, we must cut beloved Founding Father and statesman Benjamin Franklin some serious slack; it was he who proclaimed more than 200 years ago that "nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
But he was wrong. The fullness of time has revealed a third certainty for Americans: taxes after death on money they already had paid taxes on when they were living.
The federal estate tax has been enacted four times in our nation’s history, each time to help finance war. But the first three times, it was blessedly rescinded. Unfortunately, this miserable tax remained in place after its fourth enactment – to help fund World War I. From 1916 to 2006 – 90 years – Uncle Sam has reached into the coffins of American taxpayers to extract money ostensibly to pay for a war long, long over.
And the terrible burden of this regressive levy on America’s farmers, small businesses and families continues. Finally, relief may be on the way. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, RTenn., plans to push legislation to bury this Dracula-like tax this month.
Mind you, the House has moved several times, most recently in April 2005, to repeal this onerous tax. Then it achieved a bipartisan consensus of 272-162, with 42 Democrats joining their GOP counterparts. Eight of those Democrats were members of the Black Congressional Caucus, who concluded the tax severely affects first-generation black entrepreneurs.
A prime example occurred recently with the death of John Sengstacke, the publisher of the legendary Chicago Defender, one of the nation’s oldest black newspapers. Deprived of a chunk of his estate, his relatives are struggling to keep the paper in business.
Now, with Frist’s promise, the Senate seems poised to follow in kind, despite the fact that a supermajority of 60 votes will be required. The proverbial light may indeed be at the end of the tunnel.
Why does our government see fit to re-tax the accumulated savings of productive, entrepreneurial people? In a nation beset with debt, with a citizenry less and less likely to save for tomorrow’s uncertainties, let’s hope the repeal of the estate tax will provide the incentives for Americans to take control of their economic futures.
As grieving families try to cope with the death of a loved one, there’s no earthly reason Uncle Sam should seize upward of 55 percent of the deceased’s assets, especially when they already have been taxed at least once!
The permanent repeal of the tax offers fairness to American families by removing an illogical motivation – one that makes it cheaper for individuals to sell their businesses prior to death and pay individual capital gains than to pass it along to heirs.
I’ve been hammering away at this simple bit of logic for the past 15 years, trying to honor Ronald Reagan, the first president to call the estate tax by its rightful name: the death tax.
Pushing a permanent repeal certainly has been a Sisyphean struggle. Every time we rolled this legislation almost to the top of the hill, it rolled back down.
We’re determined to win this fight because we know how much senior citizens hate a tax that deprives their children and grandchildren of their rightful inheritance.
America’s seniors and all who love and admire them should urge their senators and representatives, in no uncertain terms, that now is the time to drive a stake through the heart of this universally despised tax.
James L. Martin is president of the 60 Plus Association, a senior-citizens advocacy organization. Readers may write to him at 60 Plus, 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 960, Arlington, Va. 22209. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
I just wrote an essay ( http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/05/trouble-making-truth-tellers.html ) that spoke to "why experts - if they know so much - never agree on anything." Here is what I said:
"Even if one side of an issue is seriously struggling to find the truth, the other side isn’t listening; instead, they’re actively working to AVOID the truth. At best, one side wants to overcome ignorance for the greater good of mankind; the other side – selfishly benefiting from that ignorance – wants to keep it that way. It is a struggle, but it is neither a dialogue nor an investigation; it is not colaborative. It is a tug of war; and the Dark Side believes: all’s fair in tug and war. It’s Henry Clay turned upside down: “I’d rather be President than right.”
No sooner had I posted this than the Columbus Dispatch provided the perfect evidence for my assertion. As they periodically do, they posed a question ( "Should the estate tax be ended by Congress?") and then provided two different writers' "answer" to the question. What they provided proves the point of my earlier essay.
One writer, Mark Weisbrot (directly below) discussed the matter, providing specific facts relevant to making an informed decision aimed at the well-being of almost all the people (99.7% of us).
The other dispicable beast, James L. Martin, filled his full-page column spewing shit designed to convince us that giving a break to the top 0.3% of taxpayers was crucial to the well-being of Blacks, seniors, farmers, small businesses, families, and - need I say - DEAD people!
This son-of-a-bitch says he's "been hammering away at this simple bit of logic [sic] for the past 15 years, trying to honor Ronald Reagan." Yeah, and trying to dishonor honesty and 99.7% of Americans too.
Folks, this is clear as glass!! This is the shit we are fed, and if we refuse to see it, I guess we desrve it on our menue. This beast, James Martin, makes a good living spreading manure on the trusting American populace. He says that selling us on selling out our birthright for the good of the elite 0.3% "has been a Sysyphean struggle" (that's good). He calls it a "terrible burden" that the top 0.3% of wealthy Americans are required to pay an inheritance tax (i.e. the wealthy, LIVING, 0.3% of Americans are required to pay - not the dead ones who earned the money).
I find it reprehensible that the Dispatch would allow such crap equal time with the truth. Moreover, it is totally depressing to consider that anyone in the 99.7% of people being propagandized might buy into the bullshit.
Hey Folks, it's all right here directly below. Check it out for yourself.
- Uke Man
Should estate tax be ended by Congress?
No: Despite the rhetoric, data clearly show this would help only wealthiest Americans
Monday, May 08, 2006 - MARK WEISBROT
"Money to get power, and power to guard the money," was the motto of the powerful Medici family in 16 thcentury Florence. It is getting to be a successful modern political strategy for some of America’s wealthiest families.
A report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy shows how 18 of these families, including the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, spent millions of dollars to push for the repeal of the federal estate tax, which is paid by wealthy heirs when they receive inherited wealth. Using trade associations and influential lobbyists, these extremely rich families stand to gain an astounding $71 billion from the repeal.
In the next month or so, the White House and Republican leaders are hoping to eliminate the estate tax permanently.
About 99.7 percent of Americans are not rich enough to be affected by the estate tax. The existing exemptions allow their heirs to get whatever is left to them without paying any taxes. But that other 0.3 percent increasingly find themselves in the role of "the deciders."
Proponents of repeal have gone to great lengths to persuade people that the tax is a threat to small businesses and farms. The story of people having to sell the family farm to pay the tax was getting fairly good play until Pulitzer-Prize-winning New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston found that there were no verifiable instances of this actually happening, despite President Bush’s insistence that "to keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax." Death tax is the scary-sounding name that Republicans invented for the estate tax.
Repealing the estate tax is consistent with the overall thrust of President Bush’s "ownership society," where the rules are tilted ever more favorably toward owners, especially the big ones.
One goal seems to be to rewrite the tax code so that owners of wealth do not pay taxes on the income that their wealth generates. Lowering the tax on capital gains primarily has benefited rich people. The same is true for cutting the tax on stock dividends. Only about half of Americans hold stocks, and for those who do, it is generally through retirement accounts, which are unaffected by stock-dividend tax cuts.
Many people think that such changes don’t affect them if they are not rich. But because the government does not stop spending money, the overwhelming majority of Americans who get their income from labor rather than ownership will end up paying more taxes so that wealthy people can pay less.
Repealing the estate tax would be another big step in this program, costing the Treasury about $1 trillion in the first decade.
A few months ago, Congress seemed ready to repeal the estate tax. But the anger over rising gasoline prices in the face of record oil-company profits has begun to hurt President Bush. Coming on the heels of a succession of scandals and a deeply unpopular war, the gasoline controversy has driven Bush’s approval rating down to a personal worst of 33 percent and has begun to weigh on the Republican Party’s prospects for the November congressional elections.
Do the Republicans really want to add another trillion dollars to the future national debt in an election year, just so a handful of rich families can pass even more wealth to their children? Only if they can do it when no one is looking.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Readers may write him at CEPR, 1621 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20009-1052. Distributed by Knight Ridder/ Tribune Information Services.
weisbrot@cepr.net
Should estate tax be ended by Congress?
Yes: This legacy of wartime need has become an impediment to good business
Monday, May 08, 2006 - JAMES L. MARTIN
In the interest of fairness, we must cut beloved Founding Father and statesman Benjamin Franklin some serious slack; it was he who proclaimed more than 200 years ago that "nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
But he was wrong. The fullness of time has revealed a third certainty for Americans: taxes after death on money they already had paid taxes on when they were living.
The federal estate tax has been enacted four times in our nation’s history, each time to help finance war. But the first three times, it was blessedly rescinded. Unfortunately, this miserable tax remained in place after its fourth enactment – to help fund World War I. From 1916 to 2006 – 90 years – Uncle Sam has reached into the coffins of American taxpayers to extract money ostensibly to pay for a war long, long over.
And the terrible burden of this regressive levy on America’s farmers, small businesses and families continues. Finally, relief may be on the way. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, RTenn., plans to push legislation to bury this Dracula-like tax this month.
Mind you, the House has moved several times, most recently in April 2005, to repeal this onerous tax. Then it achieved a bipartisan consensus of 272-162, with 42 Democrats joining their GOP counterparts. Eight of those Democrats were members of the Black Congressional Caucus, who concluded the tax severely affects first-generation black entrepreneurs.
A prime example occurred recently with the death of John Sengstacke, the publisher of the legendary Chicago Defender, one of the nation’s oldest black newspapers. Deprived of a chunk of his estate, his relatives are struggling to keep the paper in business.
Now, with Frist’s promise, the Senate seems poised to follow in kind, despite the fact that a supermajority of 60 votes will be required. The proverbial light may indeed be at the end of the tunnel.
Why does our government see fit to re-tax the accumulated savings of productive, entrepreneurial people? In a nation beset with debt, with a citizenry less and less likely to save for tomorrow’s uncertainties, let’s hope the repeal of the estate tax will provide the incentives for Americans to take control of their economic futures.
As grieving families try to cope with the death of a loved one, there’s no earthly reason Uncle Sam should seize upward of 55 percent of the deceased’s assets, especially when they already have been taxed at least once!
The permanent repeal of the tax offers fairness to American families by removing an illogical motivation – one that makes it cheaper for individuals to sell their businesses prior to death and pay individual capital gains than to pass it along to heirs.
I’ve been hammering away at this simple bit of logic for the past 15 years, trying to honor Ronald Reagan, the first president to call the estate tax by its rightful name: the death tax.
Pushing a permanent repeal certainly has been a Sisyphean struggle. Every time we rolled this legislation almost to the top of the hill, it rolled back down.
We’re determined to win this fight because we know how much senior citizens hate a tax that deprives their children and grandchildren of their rightful inheritance.
America’s seniors and all who love and admire them should urge their senators and representatives, in no uncertain terms, that now is the time to drive a stake through the heart of this universally despised tax.
James L. Martin is president of the 60 Plus Association, a senior-citizens advocacy organization. Readers may write to him at 60 Plus, 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 960, Arlington, Va. 22209. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home