RACHEL MADDOW EXPLAINS WHY DEMOCRATS DONT HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE GOP ON TAX CUTS

[SkyRifter]

>RACHEL MADDOW -Just admit what you know about BILDERBERG establishment.That your station GOT TONS of Bailout Crook money.

[Neosaigo]

Democrats folds like a lawn chair, it is just that sad as they are at least more sane than the GOP these days.

It took Obama 3 years to learn what he is suppose to be doing, and that might be too little too late if he doesn't win re-election.

However judging on how the GOP having been doing, winning shouldn't be that had hard. Plus these days you can't get anything passed without a super majority thanks to the over use of filibusters.

[biguy617]

This is not negotaiting. It is surrending. Dam democrats sucks.

[greptor]

When will Obama return to his liberal center, tax cuts and estate tax relief for the rich? are you kidding me. Obama promised he would raise the oppressed poor people of the U.S. and bring down the evil rich people of the U.S. he would raise the homosexual community over the evil catholic church, where is he on these issues, hiding behind smooth talking bill Clinton. give me a break barack !

[biguy617]

@greptor Obama never had a liberal center.

[Stwatubes]

I declare this video "LAME DYKE WATCH" ! MUHAHAHAHA! The Democratic controlled Senate and House just voted in the TAX RATE EXTENSION. Also, they DEFEATED various lame ESTATE TAX proposals where one proposal would have an effective TAX rate of 100% over and exemption of $1,000,000. I guess they did not buy the BS CHARTS.

[thevirtueallliberal]

@Stwatubes it's nice to see your really happy the richest 2% received an extension of tax cuts which you will never receive and or see . The Democrats received something as well . We received extended unemployment and affirmation that the Tea Party really was full of shit when they said they care about deficits . It will come in handy in 2012 . By the way, who is your front runner ?

[teebeebad]

@thevirtueallliberal You fuckin' idiot, the bottom 30+ % of bottom feeders pay NO tax at all, unless they inadvertantly pay with their governmental "gift" cards, which by the way the rest of us pay for with our taxes!!

[TheUnNerved]

@thevirtueallliberal So how many new Congressmen were "new" that voted? NONE. That's what lame duck means. How much of this video did you comprehend... obviously not much.

None of the 112th congress that was voted in November took part in the vote. Retards like you make me sick.

[thevirtueallliberal]

@TheUnNerved Lol, what the hell are you talking about ?

[elseby]

@Stwatubes why are you so happy about that? Unless you are extremely freaking rich those two points you are jubilant about are nothing but bad for you!

fail

[flyboymd82]

Looks like the "genius" Dyke cunt was wrong huh? LMAO!!

EPIC FAIL BITCH!!!!!!

[bryontucker]

"Bush's Tax Cuts were not paid for"!? Tax cuts don't cost money! That is a typical Liberal intentional misleading statement. It is not a "bonus" or a "tax credit". It is keeping the rates the same. Why shoule the gov't make more of YOUR money that YOU do!? We have seen how the gov't spends money...why give them more money!? They will wasted it like everything else. More money in the job-creators pockets means more jobs plain and simple...

[johmccarty]

WOW 1 stage, 1 show 2 of the biggest morons on earth

[rosengj]

How come no one ever mentions that the people who own and run businesses are the ones deciding to NOT create jobs. If the million or so top earning Americans all hired a few people each we would be out of the hole in a year or two.

It is Republicans who are holding back hiring.

[Mike10four]

Maddow, you can't get a job from a poor person. The more money the rich has, the more jobs they create hence, the more tax payers resulting in more revenue to the Gov a win-win. Even the esteem Progressive Democrat JFK agrees, see youtube “JFK on Taxes”: watch?v=qVwGIeD9i3I. Throughout history lowering taxes improves the economy giving the Gov more revenue. Yes Maddow, your Obama knows this. So why does he not want to help our economy, or is it his plan?

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four The ones who have created every job I've ever had, were the people I was serving, the middle man who got the labor surplus was secondary. Also the top marginal tax rate under JFK was 90% not 39%, note the giant difference between those numbers, also note how the government had reduced revenue with these tax cuts instated.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality Any job anyone has, they provide some form of service. You serve the one who created the job or you serve the customer. You serve the one who pays you; except, if you are on the dole. As for JFK, the top marginal tax was 90% he reduced it to 70%, "note the great difference between those numbers," resulting in more jobs and more revenue for the Gov. When Gov gets more money they over spend thinking the growth in jobs will continue. Compare the size of Gov today to the days of JFK.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Again I served working class, not rich, rich payed me, rich owned where I worked, but rich was taking advantage of the situation, the ones who really create jobs are those who create the need for them. We have a consumer based economy giving the wealthy tax cuts doesn't create jobs, as the very tax cuts we are discussing have already demonstrated.Actually when dumb asses think tax cuts are the most important duty of government, then they overspend, as under Reagan, Bush43.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality You disagree with the esteem Progressive Democrat JFK. If he can't convince you, I will not waste time. Your Marxist class warfare view in the US is delusional. Where else, can a non rich, unconnected, high school educated, boy become one of the richest persons in the world as in Bill Gates? That rich dude created jobs making lots of people rich. You too can become rich; the only one holding you back is you. As for the "most important duty of government," read our Constitution!

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four I don't disagree at all, I understand the difference between reducing taxes from 90% to 70% & 39% to 36%. All you have to do to convince me is show me that these tax cuts created jobs. & I'm not Marxist, & my class warfare is purely defensive. & Never have I worked for a rich man, always workers. Also Gates is a thieving whore. I have read the constitution, nowhere does it state that the purpose of government is regressive taxation.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality Tax cuts create jobs! Look at JFK's results. Every time reducing taxes were tried, has improved employment; it is a historical fact. Rich is a relative term however, I'm sure your pay is not from one who is poor, without money to spare. As for the Constitution not stating a regressive tax, nor does it state our current progressive tax. However, Plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto states: "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." We should adopt the Fair Tax, to be fair.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Let me get this straight. Because JFK's cuts grew the economy & created jobs, Bush's cuts create jobs, even though they have not? & That progressive taxation is Marxist even though it predates Marx by roughly 6000 years, because Marx approved of the idea? & Our regressive taxation is progressive & not mentioned int he constitution therefor the purpose of government is regressive taxation?

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Continued. On the fair tax, first, it is not fair, I do not benefit from multibillion dollar weapon deals as much as the wealthy, nor do I benefit war or even defense equally. In fact if the government were to disappear, my life would hardly be affected so it is not fair for me to shoulder a GREATER burden for government when I receive a lessor benefit.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality In part, jobs are a function of taxes; it's in the historical record. If you can't search the historical record, that's your problem. Not only does the US follow Plank 2, it follows all 10 Planks, to some degree, thanks to our Living-constitution. Yes you do benefit from the "multibillion dollar weapon deals" for you have your freedom, or what's left of it. Hence, the purpose of our Gov is to protect our Rights of: "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;" the good old days.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Please explain how multi billion dollar weapon deals, in any way effect my freedom? Oh wait I see you're saying I'm bribing the defense contractors for my freedom. Surprisingly I'm still against it. & You do not get to argue against the Constitution while (failing at) arguing from the Constitution. & the purpose of government is either to provide mutual aid & security or exploit the common man, your choice.Oh FYI nowhere in the constitution does it state the purpose of government.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality We needed those "weapon deals" to win WWII otherwise; you would not be free today. The preamble of our Constitution states the purpose of our government. The meaning of the word Preamble: "introduction to document, speech, etc, explaining its purpose." As for your statement: "you do not get to argue against the Constitution ..." According to the First Amendment, I could argue against anything!

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Oh really? We needed to sell weapons to the Saudis in 2010 to win ww2? We needed to use the M16A1 a substandard rifle which jammed so frequently that it's believed to have cost thousands of GIs their lives to win a war that ended 20 years prior? & Yes you can argue from & against the constitution at the same time, you just look like an idiot exposing you're contradiction. Why are you defining preamble? & The preamble of the Constitution, only gives the purpose of the Constitution.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality From your comments, you needed help finding where "the purpose of Gov" is in our Constitution, location; preamble. I gave the definition of preamble to make it clear it is the purpose. The Constitution is the blueprint of our Gov hence, our Gov. Thank me! You are down on our defense, which is in our Constitution; one of the purposes of Gov. It is not me arguing against the Constitution, it is you. Perhaps, you are exposing your contradiction. Are you an "idiot?" I don't know yet.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Well that explains it you're an idiot. & Again the Preamble of the Constitution doesn't state the purpose of government. I'm not "down on our defense" this might surprise you but you don't need to spend more than the rest of the world combined on military in order to defend yourself. & I have not argued against the constitution, you however have complained that it is a living document, which is actually in the constitution. Thanks sophomoric stupidity makes me laugh.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four & I just have to know. How is it you get around the worst job growth since the great depression during the Bush years if his tax cuts created jobs? Or how about's the second worst under Reagan? & What do you mean "hence our government"? Preambles to document only refer to the purpose of documents, don't you think if the men at the convention actual agreed on the purpose of government they would have stated it?

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality I respectfully disagree; the purpose of our Gov is clearly stated in the Preamble of our Constitution. Your turn, what is the purpose of Gov and where is that stated? What should the amount be for defense? You said we "spend more than" anyone. How much is China spending on their military? Where is the clause "living document" located in our Constitution? As for, Jobs vs. tax cuts - please check the historical record. Why do I have to keep saying that? Yes, I get around just fine.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Reality doesn't care if you disagree with it. Article 5 sets up the constitution as a living document. But you're referring to interpretation of the Constitution, which is pretty much bitching about the fact that something is/was illegal but no one realized it, that is you despise rule of law. China's 2009 military budget US$98.8Billion, USA's $663Billion (excluding the costs of the current wars & military pensions/benefits) Note the 670% difference.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality You did not answer the purpose of our Gov question, or your perceived amount of what we should spend for our defense. Article 5 is the amendment process not a "living document" aka living-constitution as in non-originalist jurisprudence. A dollar in China goes a long way, about 10xUS so $98.8B is $988B effectively more than US military budget. The way they pay their citizens, they get a bigger bang for the buck; no pun intended.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four I have answered every question you have asked. & Please don't respond if you didn't bother reading. & How about we compare military spending as a % of GDP, China 1.4%, USA 3.6%.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality Sorry; I missed your answers to: What is the purpose of our Gov? What do you think we should spend on defense? Say Red China's budget is true. We're fighting a war, have bases throughout the world from WW2, Cold war and Korea war legacies. Parts of the Mideast exploit us as some de facto police force. What a mess in trying to keep peace in a dangerous world; I say, let's bring our forces home, let China keep the peace. They'll take no bullshit, for they are infidels too.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four To answer the question your re-asking to provide a basis for mutual aid & security (AKA MAS)

To answer the question you asked for the first time but are pretending you've asked repeatedly, 2.25% GDP. (FYI the wars are not included in the current budget, & requiring something 7 decades ago does not justify spending money on it now).

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality What is "mutual aid & security?" My question was: What do you think we should spend on defense? Defense as in military. Mutual aid sounds like some welfare package. Security? Are you referring to: the TSA, securing our boarders, etc? How about securing our freedom, which is clearly stated in the Preamble of our Constitution; today, the Oligarchy seems to be a bigger threat to our freedom than our adversaries.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four Mutual aid & security would be aid & security that is mutual. 2.25%GDP would be 2.25% GDP roughly 3.5 billion. Security refers to security. To not be robbed (if you live in a society that has the concept of property), to not be killed, to insure the future of you civilization, would be security. Security would be the police the military, the courts, even the fire dept (as they secure property & life). Liberty falls more on the aid side as it is a common goal.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality It is sad how our Gov controlled schools has dumb down its citizens in Gov and financing. Read Article 1, Section 8 and you will find only 21 things Congress can spend our tax money on. You say, "not be robbed?!" Well if our Gov is spending outside those 21 things, we are being "robbed" hence, the threat to our Liberty. Police, non-Fed courts, fire dept are all local issues not the US Gov. Also, 2.25% GDP is more like 350 billion. Sad, very sad; what our schools are doing.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four I am aware of the congressional powers. & You're right I had a brain fart, it would be 350billion dollars, now tell me why you couldn't do basic math 21 hours ago? You somehow gained the ability to do basic arithmetic in 16 hours? Seriously WTF? & Can you name one thing the government is spending on outside their legal power?

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality 21 hours ago you made no basic math errors, 16 hours ago you did. Since you are "aware of congressional powers" than, you already know the Gov spending outside of Article 1, Section 8.

[Fuctmentality]

@Mike10four So why was it you couldn't do basic math 23 hours ago again? & Please tell me, what spending are you talking about again?

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality I corrected your math and helped guide you to the location in our Constitution concerning spending. You need to engage some effort to self educate and not rely on others to spoon feed. There is so much I could do in guidance; the rest is up to you. And in saying that, I must move on. It was my pleasure having this exchange of ideas with you.

[Mike10four]

@Fuctmentality Additional info: It seems China when over budget. According to the World Bank they spent 2.0% GDP in 2009.

[hillphyre]

That dark-haired dude @ 5:21 sounds really really drunk. He keeps slurring his words.

/mostimpartialcommenticouldthi­nkof

[Stwatubes]

AND another thing, IT APPEARS TO ME, that Sergeant Schultz hasn't been missing ANY MEALS. Perhaps he can DONATE a portion of his raw meat collection to people that are in need. 70% of Americans are GROSSLY obeese. Which means they can probalby go without eating for 6 months or more. Nevertheless, tell the Sergeant to have his FAT Lipoed, so it can be sterilized and canned.

[Stwatubes]

HEY LESBIAN, the Unemployment Benefit Extensions were defeated in the HOUSE. The country could go into a Gerald Celente type DOOMSDAY event. If true, your daily little musings wont FEED anyone, Olbermann excepted. Can you imagine Americans starving, or migrating to MEXICO for JOBS. Perhaps the House will vote again, but one thing you fail to realize: NO ONE IN THE COUNTRY HAS ANY MONEY. Thats WHY THE FEDS ARE PRINTING IT. GET A BRAIN.

[Stwatubes]

People forget that the 2001 Tax Relief was enacted to combat a recession inherited by the Bush Administration.

Under George Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.

The rich are tapped OUT! The country is SCREWED!

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes yes, the rich are "Tapped Out" they have no money. There was a statistic that in the past 30 years, with trickle down economics, the type which you fight for, over 80% of the wealth went to the top .2% and stayed there. Just because people pay 60% of taxes doesn't mean anything, when they control 95% of the wealth. That hardly "tapped out".

[ProudConservative2]

@Madjacker08 Dont' forget... that "wealth" belongs to THEM.. not YOU and not the govt either! We are taxed enough already... all of us! People with money are the ONLY people that can employ someone else (other than a govt fake job).

[Madjacker08]

@ProudConservative2 Yeah, is that what they are going to do? the CEO's are going to save several hundred thousand dollars and put that into their publicly traded company? No, they will just pocket it, it doesn't stimulate the economy. And we are not that taxed. Taxes are pretty damned low right now, especially with the Bush tax cuts I want to see expire. What is your tax rate? Do you even know?

[ProudConservative2]

@Madjacker08 I don't make enough to pay the 39% that people making over 250K would have to shell out. If the Bush tax rates expire even the lowest rate will see a 50% tax increase... Hey, if you libs think we aren't paying enough in taxes why don't you just voluntarily give 10% more to the govt. You wouldn't get 1% of the RICH libs doing that... they want "other" people to pay. Listen, except for police and roads, military and border the fed govt should not be giving away our money!

[TMBrd89]

No sorry, you said death tax. That has nothing to do with the Estate tax my ignorant friend. Even though 11 states have the Estate tax. Estate taxes range from 39 to 45%. The recommendation is that in 2011 a Federal Estate Tax of only 55% over a million dollar NOT 100%. You are a moron who can get your facts straight. On top of that married couples are exempt from this tax COMPLETELY. Who is the joke now?

[Stwatubes]

@TMBrd89 LOOK YOU STUPID JACKASS. I am talking about the taxes that would be reported on FORM 706, that is used for Estate purposes and is referred to BY THE IRS as the Death Tax. See IRS publication 559. The Democrats are proposing a $1,000,000 exemption with a 100% taxation rate above the exemption. SOCIALISM = trickle up POVERTY.

[TMBrd89]

@Stwatubes Well you would be wrong. That is not the tax rate, do you not care that you are lying? Socialism= trickle up poverty? WTF? That makes no sense. The way you describe it is that poor people choose to be poor. The truth is that socialism is the complete redistribution of wealth period, as in absolutely no profit. But I digress, if you knew our economic system you would see we are a mixed economy, both socialism and capitalism.

[bejocy]

Was Rachel a forceps baby?...why does she talk out of the side of her mouth?

But she is right about one thing...they are lame.

[chase0291]

i like how it takes her 1 hour to say one thing that doesn't even make sense.

[TimDisagree]

I really don't think we should give tax cuts to people who aren't hiring while they sit on record profits.

[leftgibson]

This Guy Scares Me. Where did He get that Haircut???

I bet he could kick Keith Olbermann's Ass.

[Boomer1949]

Doesn't congress break before Thanksgiving and don't come back until after New Years? Correct me if I'm wrong please, I'd like to know. If this is the fact, then just how much do you think will happen in the next week and a half? Taxes, that's it and it will be a compromise, even if it doesn't have to be. Well, get screwed for sure.

[capsnb42]

@jezmundberserker Well now, wasn't that witty. I hope you know that when you use the word God in an expression such as "god you're ignorant," the word god, is not capitalized. You are the epitome of the elitist liberal who thinks they just know everything there is to know in all of the universe. I bow down to you and Rachel Maddow (aka. Paul) in all of your utter brilliance.

[jezmundberserker]

I think Rachel should give Alan Grayson the tax-cut graph and let him use it in the House.

[capsnb42]

@mateoontherocks god youre stupid

[jezmundberserker]

@capsnb42: I agree with you. The idea of a god is stupid, which is exactly what I call people who can't type punctuation marks and/or capitalize the name of their deity of choice.

[Stwatubes]

This argument is only usefull for people that are urgently promoting class warfare. The chart is misleading in that is does not show how much taxes are actuall "paid" by the various income groups. It must have taken Rachel an entire weekend to figure out how to present her BS in chart form, and as usual Rachel convinces NO ONE. But the chart cleary shows that once you get over 250K in income, the Democrats WANT ALL OF YOUR INCOME.

[mateoontherocks]

@Stwatubes Are you joking? Rachel convinced me, mostly because she is EXACTLY RIGHT. You're either rich or you're an idiot that's being convinced to hold up a broken system that disproportionately benefits the elites.

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes @Stwatubes you seem to forget that these are TAX CUTS... meaning, reguardless people will get a tax cut, paying less taxes than pre-bush era... you really are fighting for the millionaires to get a larger tax cut? They do not pay their fair share of taxes. ( the top 2% controls over 90% of all wealth and pay only about 70% of taxes, that sounds fair). They have been takling all the wealth from the middle class for over 30 years, and you will defend them?

[Stwatubes]

@Madjacker08 Why should a millionaire pay more taxes than you. Sales taxes don't work that way. Now that I think about it, most taxes don't work that way. Nevertheless, the rich have been bearing the brunt of the taxes in this country for almost a century. BTW, millionaires aren't taking your wealth away, Congress is! No matter what they do to the rich. Get your facts straight. Vote out the Dems and you will get your money back.

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes You need to get your facts straight. The rich has been STEALING from the middle class since 1980. They went from a top 90% tax rate to 35%. In that time the nation has crumbled. They ran off with all the money while middle class household income has sat stagnant. You think they pay too much? There is a reason Warren Buffet never had to pay out the reward for anyone who could prove they payed more in taxes than their secretary.

[Stwatubes]

@Madjacker08 Aren't you forgetting, the period in American History BEFORE there were INCOME TAXES at all. Did the Nation crumble then? Did the rich steal from the poor then? No matter how you slice or dice it, the rich lead this country, and it all works a lot better, if you don't tax the bejusus out of them. The middle class is eroding, because the entire country is now filled with Mexicans.

[TMBrd89]

@Stwatubes lol really? You don't know what you are talking about. The highest bracket is on 35% only 10% more than the average, and that isn't including the tax breaks and loop holes. Especially for millionaires who only use about 20% of their income, when the avg household uses 65-80% of theirs. And you have the nerve to say, "promoting class warfare."

[Stwatubes]

@TMBrd89 I'm sorry, I did not see the data you mention on Rachel's chart. If you look at the Chart closely (the blue circles), you will see that The Democrats want all of your income after you have reached a specific income level. That is their proposal.

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes Plus your reading the chart wrong... with NO tax cuts (the chart representing such) the rich will pay only 35% after 250k of income... Thats hardly "all their money"... The chart only shows how big a tax cut they want to give everyone. And the dems are right, the rich will be fine paying out 35% after 250k of earnings, they don't need a break...

[Stwatubes]

@Madjacker08 You should probably stop letting a Democratic Lesbian explain the chart to you. You will be happier as a Republican. Demand that Income Taxes be abolished. Don't replace them with anything. Cut every entitlement you can find, and watch the country stop crumbling.

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes Ok, so let me get this straight... No taxes, and no entitlements? Somehow the country won't crumble without a GOVERNMENT to GOVERN!? You are definately insane. Who is going to protect you from every criminal and starving person out there? What police department will help you? What court will exist with no taxes? It has been proven that entitlements are much better for the economy than tax cuts, do some research on the return of a dollar in tax cuts vice entitlements.

[Stwatubes]

@Madjacker08 I SAID, elminate income taxes. The Federal Government existed until 1913 WITHOUT INCOME TAXES. In fact, there was a Constitutional Ammendment to enable them. There are other sources of revenue available to the Federal Government. Entitlements need to go. All of them. GOD, are you stupid or what?

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes you throw a lot of insults at people, thats not a very good way to be taken seriously in any intellectual debate, and thats what you seem to want to do. So anyways, where do you propose the government get the money if the income tax were to be abolished? There are 2 other places, taxing goods, or selling goods and services. Taxing goods was done and caused alot of problems, favors the rich, and thus why the income tax was born. No, we are not stupid, stop acting like you know all.

[Stwatubes]

@Madjacker08 Thats a funny response. You reliaze there is a record of everyone's post here. IT WAS YOU, that claimed you were smarter than me. You began the insults, and I doubt if ANYONE is taking you or me that seriously here. Besides all this LEFT vs RIGHT, DEM vs REP stuff is meaningless anyway. THE USA is totally BROKE. THE STATES are BROKE. THE PEOPLE are unemployed and BROKE, and the RICH are diminishing at a rapid pace. THE USA must cut back, ON EVERYTHING, or its curtains.

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes yes, I know there is a record, please show me anywhere that i stated I am smarter than you, please. I would love to see that. I never insulted you other than I said you were insane if you think abolishing taxes would fix things. I see you are just making things up as you go, hurling insults, then playing the victim. I cannot take anything you say seriously if thats how you act when there is intellectual debate. Good day.

[TMBrd89]

@Stwatubes That would mean that you have no concept of tax brackets or tax cut. Which would mean that you don't know what you are talking about. The Democrate proposal basically say once you make 1-million a year, you don't need any more economic aid in the form of tax cut. So shut up until you can show me a starving homeless millionaire.

[Stwatubes]

@TMBrd89 Ahem! I really think you are getting mixed up over the terms you are using. For instance you call these tax CUTS and ECONOMIC AID. You need to go into a dark room all alone and think about it for a while. And remember the Dems want everthing you saved during your LIFETIME if it exceeds 1 million. That's the new DEATH TAX. What the Dems are really staying is: STOP WORKING, ITS NOT WORTH IT. If the Dems keep persisting on this NONSENSE, more of them will become LAME DUCKS as well!

[TMBrd89]

@Stwatubes Why do I need a dark room when I am smarter then you? That is just crazy. So just so you know there has been a death tax in most states since the 1990's thank you for paying attention this whole time. So if you are as smart as you think you are show me the 100% taxation of inheritance over million. Cause I already know the answer. So you don't know your history and you made up information, are you honest about anything?

[Stwatubes]

@TMBrd89 As you age you will discover that you are NO SMARTER than the next guy. Actually MOST states DO NOT HAVE Estate Taxes. The FED Estate TAX will likely be renewed in the Lame Duck session, with the exemption set at $1,000,000. So like I said, 100% taxation. YOU and the LESBIAN are a JOKE. Before too long, INCOME TAXES will be eliminated in this country. Go back under your bridge.

[EziekielNightwind]

@Stwatubes Oh hay. Failed grade school math didn't you? 37% =/= 100%.

And even that is ridiculously low, as 37% =/= 90%, the tax rate after the New Deal, during the economic BOOM times in the US.

[Stwatubes]

@EziekielNightwind HEY MORON. You are not listening to the LESBIAN. We are talking about PROPOSED legislation in the LAME DUCK SESSION. I know, all this is WAY OVER YOUR HEAD. The Dems are proposing 100% taxation at certain levels in Income, and Estate/Death taxes. SOCIALISM = trickle up POVERTY.

[EziekielNightwind]

@Stwatubes You mean the inheritance tax that practically doesn't exist? The same tax that would more or less guarantee a equal chance for success (not that it guarantees success mind you).

Also I can't find anything which says that the Dems are proposing a 100% estate tax.

Also "Socialism = trickle up poverty". 1) You have no idea what socialism even is. 2) As apposed to Capitalism, which is simply put, rape of the working class.

[Stwatubes]

@EziekielNightwind Google "Origin Federal Estate Tax" and you will find this tax was imposed in 1916, bearing the same logic for the implementation of the Income Tax, WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH A GUARANTEED CHANCE OF SUCCESS.

The LESBIAN LIES through her teeth. President BUSH signed a law that GUARANTEED, that the Democrats COULD NOT RAISE taxes for 10 years. Now that law has expired, and the DEMS are gonna RAISE TAXES UNTIL WE ALL PUKE.

[Madjacker08]

@Stwatubes Nothing said they could not raise taxes, it said people would have a tax break. The government can raise taxes anytime it wants, even if it was in a bill, they can ammend it. Not to meantion when when Obama took office, he actually LOWERED taxes, ooooh bad man....Those dems, trying to take all the money, I know. God forbid the rich pay more than 20% tax rate.