March 3, 201016 yr I'm not overly familiar with the details of Paygo. When is it required to be followed and when isn't it required?
March 3, 201016 yr Author http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/estate/who.cfm http://www.notjustthekitchen.com/money-finance/who-pays-estate-tax/ http://www.ctj.org/pdf/est0406.pdf Edited March 3, 201016 yr by acemona
March 3, 201016 yr 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. Bunning voted against PayGo. This is all a stunt.
March 3, 201016 yr Whether or not he voted for Paygo is not real relevant. Once it's voted in, it should be followed. Of course it's a stunt to point out the hypocrisy in the Senate. I think that's a very good thing. As someone pointed out, he doesn't have to run again so it's a lot easier to do.
March 4, 201016 yr Whether or not he voted for Paygo is not real relevant. Once it's voted in, it should be followed. Of course it's a stunt to point out the hypocrisy in the Senate. I think that's a very good thing. As someone pointed out, he doesn't have to run again so it's a lot easier to do. So, then is he really against PayGo and just using it to "point out the hypocrisy"?
March 4, 201016 yr So, then is he really against PayGo and just using it to "point out the hypocrisy"? You'd have to ask him but I would think so if he voted against it, wouldn't you?
March 4, 201016 yr You'd have to ask him but I would think so if he voted against it, wouldn't you? I agree with you. Bunning's conduct is, by definition, hypocrisy.
March 4, 201016 yr I agree with you. Bunning's conduct is, by definition, hypocrisy. Course it is, I don't know anyone in Washington who's not a hypocrit about something. Still doesn't mean that he wasn't right on this one.
March 4, 201016 yr Course it is, I don't know anyone in Washington who's not a hypocrit about something. Still doesn't mean that he wasn't right on this one. :lol: :lol: :lol: Even a hypocrite can be right on occasion... :lol: :lol: :lol: Now if Obama, Reid, Pelosi and company can just find their magical moment of temporary lucidity... :lol:
March 4, 201016 yr We should stop the hypocrisy in Washington by applauding a hypocrite who holds up a bill for some, at best, disingenuous reason? You know that doesn't make any sense. When you combine this stunt with his votes for very expensive legislation that was not paid for when Republicans wanted to circumvent PayGo, I don't see how anyone who really wants change in Washington can applaud what Bunning has done and retain for themselves any intellectual honesty. Now, if you say "I'm for anything that thwarts, for any amount of time, what the Democrats are trying to do," then support Bunning. But, those people can't complain about it when the Democrats do the same thing. (And, unfortunately, they will.) All this stunt does is embarrass Kentucky yet again.
March 4, 201016 yr I couldn't give a rat's fuzzy posterior who, what, when, where or why... I'm thrilled somebody in DC knows how to say "NO" or at least call attention to the runaway spending that is currently crippling our country and is certain to bring America to its knees. It's time to start cutting first, and then reappropriating funds from the savings. We are taxed enough... (...those of us actually paying taxes.) The top 1% of income earners pay over 40% of all income taxes. The top 50% of earners already pay over 97% of all income taxes. 1% of our entire population pays over 90% of all income taxes. Enough is enough. I hear sad stories about little kids parents having a tough time scraping together funds so the kids can participate in good activities... my heart goes out. The stories are sad... but not nearly as sad as these kids will be when we hand them the bill for irresponsible runaway spending today... that could render them subject to stronger foreign powers in a weakened America.
March 4, 201016 yr I got to digging and found one of the documents I referenced in my previous post. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf This contains older numbers, but I found the following information interesting. Households in the bottom quintile (20%) receive $14.76 of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes, compared to $0.32 of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes for the top quintile (20%). That's a difference of 4,612.5% Those dirty rich people... The most recent numbers are reflected in my post 41.
March 4, 201016 yr I couldn't give a rat's fuzzy posterior who, what, when, where or why... I'm thrilled somebody in DC knows how to say "NO" or at least call attention to the runaway spending that is currently crippling our country and is certain to bring America to its knees. It's time to start cutting first, and then reappropriating funds from the savings. We are taxed enough... (...those of us actually paying taxes.) The top 1% of income earners pay over 40% of all income taxes. The top 50% of earners already pay over 97% of all income taxes. 1% of our entire population pays over 90% of all income taxes. Enough is enough. I hear sad stories about little kids parents having a tough time scraping together funds so the kids can participate in good activities... my heart goes out. The stories are sad... but not nearly as sad as these kids will be when we hand them the bill for irresponsible runaway spending today... that could render them subject to stronger foreign powers in a weakened America. Isn't the point that Bunning didn't mean any of what he said? You'd be happy if Nancy Pelosi blocked any spending bill -- even a defense bill -- for 3 days?
March 4, 201016 yr Isn't the point that Bunning didn't mean any of what he said? You'd be happy if Nancy Pelosi blocked any spending bill -- even a defense bill -- for 3 days? Apples and oranges. Depends on what was in the bill, why she was blocking it and how we are going to pay for it. Bunning wasn't denying anyone's benefits (which in all candor do not rise to the level of national security... at least in a direct application.) He was merely holding Congress accountable to how the increase would be paid. No one lost one penny in the transaction... not one cent... except for those of us paying taxes.
March 4, 201016 yr Apples and oranges. Depends on what was in the bill, why she was blocking it and how we are going to pay for it. Bunning wasn't denying anyone's benefits (which in all candor do not rise to the level of national security... at least in a direct application.) He was merely holding Congress accountable to how the increase would be paid. No one lost one penny in the transaction... not one cent... except for those of us paying taxes. Don't know if that's true. As an example, the 2,000 workers furloughed for 3 days are going to be paid for the days they didn't work? It's "apples and oranges" only because people would support anyone blocking, for any reason, a bill that they don't want passed.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.