Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe. Apparently today's testimony was pretty wild.* Towards the end, Senator Lugar, the committee chair said, "This may be the most controversial nomination President Bush has made.... They [the Bush administration] will find another ambassador in the event this one is not satisfying."

That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence, but I don't really know what's going on.

* e.g., a GOP appointee testified, in essence, that Bolton lied yesterday when he said he didn't try to have an analyst fired.

Yet Chaffee, who's certainly no partisan, still is going to vote for him? I haven't followed this that closely, but it seems like something else is going on here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
it seems like something else is going on here.

Can I ask, who shot JFK? And was John Hinkley acting alone, or was he part of the VLWC?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yet Chaffee, who's certainly no partisan, still is going to vote for him? I haven't followed this that closely, but it seems like something else is going on here.

Chafee had said that he was "inclined" to vote for him, but that was before the hearings. Obviously the Administration will be pressuring him and everyone else to vote in favor of Bolton. Chafee will just have to decide whether it's worth taking a stand on this one.

When I read about Bolton, I'm amazed that anyone who doesn't agree with his views about the UN and the world could think he'd make a good UN Ambassador, so I would imagine that at least some of the other Republicans on the committee (e.g., Lugar) are not crazy about voting for him.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Can I ask, who shot JFK? And was John Hinkley acting alone, or was he part of the VLWC?

Wasn't it Sue Ellen's sister, the one played by Bing Crosby's daughter? You know, the spurned mistress?

Huh? Oh, I thought you asked "who shot JR?" Nevermind.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Wasn't it Sue Ellen's sister, the one played by Bing Crosby's daughter? You know, the spurned mistress?

Huh? Oh, I thought you asked "who shot JR?" Nevermind.

I shot JR. I thought everyone knew that. It was on my T-shirt.

[Gattigap]

From WaPo

• WITH MEDICAID and food stamps on the chopping block, the House of Representatives is about to vote for a $290 billion tax break for the richest sliver of Americans. The subject is, once again, the estate tax. Under the convoluted, dishonest plan Congress approved in 2001, the estate tax was to be gradually reduced and eliminated by 2010, only to spring back the following year to its 2001 level: a tax of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more. Tomorrow the House is set to vote to keep full repeal in place after 2010.
  
  This is unnecessary, irrational and unaffordable. Those who inveigh against the "death tax" point to the travails of family farmers and other small-business owners whose heirs are supposedly forced to liquidate enterprises to pay the tax bill. In fact, even if the estate tax were to revert in 2011 to its 2001 level -- and no one believes that the exemption will remain at $1 million -- it would affect the estates of only 2 percent of those expected to die that year. At $3.5 million (and $7 million for a couple) -- the level proposed in a Democratic alternative sponsored by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) -- a mere three-tenths of 1 percent of estates would be covered. In other words, no one but the richest Americans would be asked to pay estate tax.
  
  Moreover, an analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center supports the contention that the family forced to sell its farm to pay the tax is, if not a fiction, close to it. Looking at situations in which farm and business assets represent most of the estate, the Tax Policy Center found that there would be just 50 affected in 2011 in the entire country if the exemption were set at $3.5 million.

To be fair, an argument could be made that Republican support for this measure notwithstanding the extraordinary benefits conferred far beyond this identified, victimized farmer class represents an abberational departure from Republican orthodoxy, which under other circumstances is designed merely to, uh, encourage hard work and reward economic investment. Or something.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
From WaPo

• WITH MEDICAID and food stamps on the chopping block, the House of Representatives is about to vote for a $290 billion tax break for the richest sliver of Americans. The subject is, once again, the estate tax. Under the convoluted, dishonest plan Congress approved in 2001, the estate tax was to be gradually reduced and eliminated by 2010, only to spring back the following year to its 2001 level: a tax of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more. Tomorrow the House is set to vote to keep full repeal in place after 2010.
  
  This is unnecessary, irrational and unaffordable. Those who inveigh against the "death tax" point to the travails of family farmers and other small-business owners whose heirs are supposedly forced to liquidate enterprises to pay the tax bill. In fact, even if the estate tax were to revert in 2011 to its 2001 level -- and no one believes that the exemption will remain at $1 million -- it would affect the estates of only 2 percent of those expected to die that year. At $3.5 million (and $7 million for a couple) -- the level proposed in a Democratic alternative sponsored by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) -- a mere three-tenths of 1 percent of estates would be covered. In other words, no one but the richest Americans would be asked to pay estate tax.
  
  Moreover, an analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center supports the contention that the family forced to sell its farm to pay the tax is, if not a fiction, close to it. Looking at situations in which farm and business assets represent most of the estate, the Tax Policy Center found that there would be just 50 affected in 2011 in the entire country if the exemption were set at $3.5 million.

To be fair, an argument could be made that Republican support for this measure notwithstanding the extraordinary benefits conferred far beyond this identified, victimized farmer class represents an abberational departure from Republican orthodoxy, which under other circumstances is designed merely to, uh, encourage hard work and reward economic investment. Or something.

Sigh. Apparently it is now OK to target a minority of the population, so long as that minority is "rich."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sigh. Apparently it is now OK to target a minority of the population, so long as that minority is "rich."

"target" here being an odd euphemism for progressive taxation

God bless the principle of equality that drives you to say that the rich and poor alike ought to be allowed to inherit vast sums of unearned money, much like both are equally free to sleep under bridges

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sigh. Apparently it is now OK to target a minority of the population, so long as that minority is "rich."

I think you're misinterpreting an attack on Congressional disingenuousness as "an attack on the rich."

If the argument is that the death tax is morally wrong and that noone, from the impoverished to Bill Gates, should have to pay a fucking penny upon death, then GOP congressmen should be unafraid to say so, smile proudly at the amounts of money saved for those benefitting from this measure, and (presumably) articulate some plan to adjust to the loss of revenue.

Hiding behind Mom, Apple Pie, and a largely nonexistent class of family farmers to justify this legislation is simply cowardly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think you're misinterpreting an attack on Congressional disingenuousness as "an attack on the rich."

If the argument is that the death tax is morally wrong and that noone, from the impoverished to Bill Gates, should have to pay a fucking penny upon death, then GOP congressmen should be unafraid to say so, smile proudly at the amounts of money saved for those benefitting from this measure, and (presumably) articulate some plan to adjust to the loss of revenue.

Hiding behind Mom, Apple Pie, and a largely nonexistent class of family farmers to justify this legislation is simply cowardly.

OK Mr. Democrat Guy, me and the rest of the country are sick to death of the obsequious, pointy-headed attacks on Republican hypocrisy and disingenuousness. We get it. They don't mean what they say. Get over it, and make a case on substance.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"target" here being an odd euphemism for progressive taxation

You mean progressive double taxation. The money has already been taxed.

God bless the principle of equality that drives you to say that the rich and poor alike ought to be allowed to inherit vast sums of unearned money, much like both are equally free to sleep under bridges

God bless the principal that property rights are illussory in this country

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I think you're misinterpreting an attack on Congressional disingenuousness as "an attack on the rich."

If the argument is that the death tax is morally wrong and that noone, from the impoverished to Bill Gates, should have to pay a fucking penny upon death, then GOP congressmen should be unafraid to say so, smile proudly at the amounts of money saved for those benefitting from this measure, and (presumably) articulate some plan to adjust to the loss of revenue.

Hiding behind Mom, Apple Pie, and a largely nonexistent class of family farmers to justify this legislation is simply cowardly.

I agree with you. Hiding behind farmers is bullshit.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK Mr. Democrat Guy, me and the rest of the country are sick to death of the obsequious, pointy-headed attacks on Republican hypocrisy and disingenuousness. We get it. They don't mean what they say. Get over it, and make a case on substance.

Been there, done that.

Jeez. How many times are you gonna switch teams?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You mean progressive double taxation. The money has already been taxed.

Not as income to the recipient. As bilmore would observe, the donor is dead.

God bless the principal that property rights are illussory in this country

What moral right do you have to inherit money? It's not yours. It wasn't yours. You did nothing to earn it. You deserve it no more than the next person.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK Mr. Democrat Guy, me and the rest of the country are sick to death of the obsequious, pointy-headed attacks on Republican hypocrisy and disingenuousness. We get it. They don't mean what they say. Get over it, and make a case on substance.

Both parties are hypocrits. As if this debate regarding the death taxes is a fiscal policy debate, rather than an income redistribution debate.