Originally Posted by PatsSB42
Absolutely brilliant observation. Cut out with the "duh" stuff already. Voters changed to voted out republicans becasue of the Iraq war didn't automatically change their stance on all the other issues like taxes, death penalty, abortion, etc.
Have to agree. Voters do not like the idea that if they die they can not leave an inheritence to their children.
It does not follow that voters are concerned about the minority who intend to leave a million dollars or more to their descendents (the estate tax exclusion, if the current bill sunsets in 2011,) or 2 to 3.5 million (the exclusion for the estate tax right now.)
In other words, Americans might not be so thrilled to continue to fund a repeal in the estate tax, when it is made clear that it only affects the estate of a millionaire.
Republicans are savvy about this issue. They know people will vote for what they're going
to be. The number who will vote for the rights of millionaire will always exceed the number who will actually become a millionaire, because people will vote for what they project
themselves to be.
And when the inevitable comes to their own parents, or to themselves, the "estate tax" would not have touched them in the first place.
In other words, yes, your estate is taxable, but there is an exclusion not projected to dip below one million dollars. The tax percentage is higher, the richer you get.
Should rich people pay more taxes? Conning the poor into saying "no," is pretty much the conservative agenda... meanwhile, how many rich guys are teachers? Cops? Firemen? Soldiers? Precious few.
And don't forget... we end up using
the single biggest chunk of our tax burden on war - another part of the conservative agenda.
The Democrats left this country in the best fiscal shape it's been in for decades. We were finally running a surplus; the country was comparatively at peace; we were a respected member of the "family of nations."
Now? In parts of the Arab world, Bin Laden polls higher than Bush; We've insulted our own allies in Europe, and essentially pursue foreign policy objectives in a vacuum; Russia is making noises about re-starting the cold war; and we've spent hundreds of billions, with total costs probably into the trillions, on Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/bu...a6408c&ei=5090
(If you count only direct costs, and you're still looking at about a grand per taxpayer per year... and that's if nobody gets injured and needs health care from those wars in future years, etc. -- clearly an impossibility.)
Keep telling yourself that there is some "classic" conservative model that's fiscally responsible. As practiced in my lifetime, "Conservatism" ends up in record spending deficits, far more so than the politics of "Liberalism."
War. Good Gawd, Y'all. What is it good for?
$141 Billion in 2007.