He is also holding bills up to see about the cut, or elimination of the cut, of the estate tax from the Bush era. The elimination effects 2% of the estates. If the cut is allowed to expire, there is the money to pay for it. However, Bunning wants to continue to reduce revenues.

 

Wow what a concept, the parents die and their chidren get to keep what their parents earned. The reducing of revenues is a good place to start to help reduce government spending. Some just need to get over their class-envy.

I admire standing in principle.

 

I'd admire Bunning if he did this knowing he had to run for re-election. No ramifications get no praise from me.

 

Makes a great case for term limits doesn't it?

Wow what a concept, the parents die and their chidren get to keep what their parents earned. The reducing of revenues is a good place to start to help reduce government spending. Some just need to get over their class-envy.

 

There is no class envy, you don't know me . . . it effects 2% of the estates. 2%.

There is no class envy, you don't know me . . . it effects 2% of the estates. 2%.

Where are you getting that it will only affect 2% of estates?

Get your facts straight...

 

It is 2000, and they will all be paid retroactively, as soon as both sides agree on the funding method, which will probably happen by week end. This is the problem you have. You want the world, but seem to forget that you have to pay for it... He is holding the democrats to their own standard of pay as you go. If it is not rhetoric as I say it is, then put your money where your mouth is and wager your avatar on it? I will sport an Obama avatar for a week if I am wrong and these people go without retroactive pay when the funding is agreed to. Are you willing to sport a George W. Bush avatar for a week if I am right...

 

Why so picky over a couple of zeros?:jump:

There is no class envy, you don't know me . . . it effects 2% of the estates. 2%.

 

2% of the estates that have already paid taxes on the income that it took to build those estates?

 

So because these estates have managed to build wealth over the years with money that has already been taxed. In order to pass that on to their children, they should have to pay taxes again. This is part of the mentality that helped destroy generational family farms and turned them into corporate farms.

 

We stand on the shoulders of our parents and predecessors. We should be able to take what they have and build upon it. Many have little or nothing to build upon and have to start from scratch and build their own. But it doesn't change the fact that they earned it and built it and paid taxes on it along the way. And they shouldn't have to pay taxes again, in order to pass it on to their kids.

 

So you go ahead and act like it's not class envy.

For the record, I'm against estate taxes. It's pure, out and out double taxation and just plain wrong. That goes if the estate is worth a little or millions.

For the record, I'm against estate taxes. It's pure, out and out double taxation and just plain wrong. That goes if the estate is worth a little or millions.

 

Wait a minute. My head is spinning. RM and I agree. I need to go take my temperature.

Wait a minute. My head is spinning. RM and I agree. I need to go take my temperature.

 

It seems to be something going around. Today my list of people who I've either agreed with, or have agreed with me are:

 

You

Hearsay

Henry

Bluegrasscard

and Ram.

 

:lol:

It seems to be something going around. Today my list of people who I've either agreed with, or have agreed with me are:

 

You

Hearsay

Henry

Bluegrasscard

and Ram.

 

:lol:

 

Did we all give up disagreeing for Lent or what?:confused:

There is no class envy, you don't know me . . . it effects 2% of the estates. 2%.

 

Where are you getting that it will only affect 2% of estates?

Anything?

Anything?

 

I think it only kicks in when the estate is over 1.5 million. I will research later when I am not at work.

Bunning wants gov't to pay as you go, yet he rubber stamped every single spending bill Bush proposed dealing with Iraq, and we will be paying for those acts for many many years to come.

I think it only kicks in when the estate is over 1.5 million. I will research later when I am not at work.

What I found was in 2009 it was anything over 3.5milion, it will be exempt in 2010, and will go to 1 million in 2011. Never the less how do you come up with it only affects 2%? Even at those numbers it will be much higher then 2%.

Bunning wants gov't to pay as you go, yet he rubber stamped every single spending bill Bush proposed dealing with Iraq, and we will be paying for those acts for many many years to come.

 

Was Paygo in place then? It is now. Or at least it's supposed to be. It's been asked before, what's wrong with wanting them to follow something they just put in place recently?