The Republican Party is in flames and it's raining gasoline. - Page 3

I call FUD.

On what part of my multi-point post?

This is good enough to be someone's signature. Someone must grab this.

Time to do some reading....pretty interesting stuff.
http://www.cbpp.org/estatetaxmyths.p...conceptions%22

It affects inheritances, which Paris Hilton is looking forward to receiving. You say that "20% of the businesses that are subject to estate tax are forced into liquidation each year." That's simply false. People keep saying this, and yet, when people are questioned about this, no one has ever been able to find a business that has had to liquidate due to the tax. Not a single one. It's simply an urban legend.

And again, if you want to cut taxes on those with the couple hundred largest estates in the country, you're going to have to raise taxes on other people. But you say you'll be gone by then, so who cares, huh?

This is nothing but class warfare at its finest.

Paris will inherit $700 million or so I think. She will pay $300 million in taxes, and the other $400 million will have its cost basis adjusted upwards by $300 million or so - the higher basis would save her $75 million in capital gains taxes (or so), so it is a very mild bite (just a few years of stock market gains would bring that money back). Compare that to the farmer who lost everything, and can no longer "recover" - you have to pay estate tax on an appraised value which you cannot realize by selling in a short timeframe (9 months), you could even owe more in tax that you can sell the business for.

And trick fall's link confirmed my numbers:

[bottom of page 2] "Of the 65 farm estates that would have owed tax under a $3.5 million exemption, just 13 would have faced liquidity constraints".

13/65 = 20%. A liquidity constraint means that the business is sold and the workers laid off. That is 13 very large businesses EVERY YEAR being destroyed - I estimate 5000 workers laid off, because these 65 businesses are the very largest private businesses in the country.

And those number will jump back up in 2010, trick fall's numbers are set for $3.5 million, and we go back to $1m in 2010.


Trick fall's link confirmed the 20%. And the rest of the post is so obvious that I can't believe that you disagree with it. Do you really dispute the fact that the estate tax is an insurance industry subsidy?

All of the statistics from your link look at all estates - and mixing in the estates of the poor can make any estate tax numbers seem insignificant, it is just misleading.

And 22% tax paid by the average $20 million estate? I need to figure that out because I don't see any legal way to get it down that low. The average estate from the last row is $105.5 million ($23.4M/22.2%), so the average estate tax for a married couple should be $54 million (51.3%).

Sadly, no.

Factcheck.org is really controversial and oftentimes unreliable. Do a search for "atrios" and "factcheck.org" and you'll find a lot of criticism over its accuracy-- oftentimes to the point where people have started calling on fact checkers for the fact checkers.

\

I don't believe my link confirmed your 20% number. What it did say is that 20% would face liquidity constraints, but that certainly doesn't mean 20% would have to liquidate. As for your claim about the insurance industry most businesses that would be hit by the estate tax would have loans with bankers and lines of credit and the bankers would insist on the principals of the company having life insurance, it's called "key man" insurance.

If you really want to get in an uproar on taxes you should look at AMT which the Republicans for the most part seem strangely silent on, although in fairness few Democrats have been talking about it as well. And while I am at it, I do not hate the rich, but rather aspire to be wealthy. In fact my household income is in the top 5% of all Americans(based on figures for yr 2000) though I hardly consider myself rich.

If proper insurance was so easy, it would not be 13/65 with liquidity constraints, it would be 0/65. The value of your business goes up over time, and if you don't keep up with the proper insurance, or if the IRS decides it is worth more than you thought, then you are screwed (and your employees are even more screwed).

I am for getting rid of the AMT as well. Bush sponsored a committee that studied what should be done about the tax system, but then ignored their recommendations.

You must be rich as hell if the estate tax really affects you!

[deleted]

I don't think you are following me, long before you need insurance to cover estate taxes your bank will mandate that you take out insurance. I was speaking to your contention that the estate tax buoys the insurance industry. I've also yet to hear of one actual case where someone had to sell the farm to cover their estate taxes. If it's happened it certainly hasn't happened very often.

I am following you fine, you just don't know what you are talking about. You are like a blind man trying to explain the color red to a sighted man (i.e., a farmer subject to estate tax, in this case).

A bank never asks about the life insurance coverages of your shareholders, it just wants your balance sheet and a lien on some property. Even if the bank forced you to get life insurance, your business may appreciate past the point where you can pay the tax (or the IRS may inflate the valuation of the company and you can't pay the tax). Insurance is fixed, assets appreciate, so you have to keep on top of things and keep buying more insurance every year.

And the estate tax buoys the insurance industry big time - are you seriously suggesting otherwise? It is pretty funny, BTW, that Warren Buffet (the big insurance guy) is so pro-estate tax, kind of makes me vomit a little in my mouth.

So, e#, to prove this is not FUD, please give us some examples of any properly run businesses that have had to fold due to the estate tax. Thanks.

Despite the foreign policy-problems, ie. Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and North-Corea, I don't think that the winner of the election will win because of these topics.

The topics that really will dominate the elections are of course the economy, immigration, and religiously sensitive topics like gay-marriage and abortion.

Given that most americans trust the republicans more in these areas, and given the fact that the economy was pretty good in the last few years, that a fence was built in parts of the Mexico-US-border, and that the conservatives are pretty known for their not too fond attitude towards gays and abortion, I think the republicans will win again.

You might think that the Foley-scandal was a big desaster for the republicans, but I think that Rove actually timed that scandal perfectly to draw attention and publicity away from Bob Woodward's new book.

Should the case be that the republicans really have to fear for the election, there is always the surprise-catch of Osama Bin Ladin, and if even that doesn't help there is always the hacking-possibility.

Nightcrawler

And that's exactly what's so fucking sick about America...

An election was decided because a very popular, and very effective president was caught with his pants down in his private life, and then only because someone illegally recorded a private conversation.

Another election was decided by a thread because of really creepy mudslinging about whether someone who really honestly put his life on the line for his country really did that as much as he said he did, while someone with drunk-driving convictions and a history of drugs, who avoided putting his life on the line in any way whatsoever, was appauded as if he were one of the Dukes of Hazzard.

Values people. Where the fuck have the REAL values gone????

Private sex lives? That's not values. Whether we go to war and bomb the shit out of someone for being a (perceived) "threat"... and lying about the extent of that threat... and deliberately misleading people about that threat's involvement in a real tragedy... and wasting lives and dollars because of a grudge or a money/oil grab... that should be what our values are helping us make the right decisions about.

And that thing about private sex lives? I think the pageboy scandal won't have much effect. Clinton got the shit because many voting male social conservatives actually envied him (admit it!) and most voting female social conservatives envied her (admit it!). There's not nearly as much envy involved with pagegate.

I wouldn't know that any more than I would know the contents of your 401K - the private nature of the transactions hides them. All I know is that if my wife and I died today, my kids would have to sell out to pay the tax, probably at a lower than market price because of the short timeframe.

Time to ship some more money off the the vampires of the insurance industry, thanks to the estate taxing government that is throwing me into the vampire pit. Creating an artificial need for insurance is a drag on society, there are all kinds of resources that are being spent on this tax which could otherwise push the economy forward.

If collecting tax money was the only goal, a yearly intangibles tax would be a lot less traumatic than a death tax - the burden would be evened out so that it would not drive companies out of business (and it would cut the insurance industry out of the loop).

here - I put a curse on you:

You will inherit $50 million in very illiquid real estate (maybe a condo building in Miami right before the condo bust, say). The IRS will demand $25 million estate tax payable within 9 months (of which 4 months are wasted transferring the assets to you). You will end up only being able to sell the real estate for $18 million due to the rushed sale, leaving you with $7 million still owed to the IRS, who will then confiscate all your other assets and garnish your wages for the rest of your life.

Tonton, as much as I hate debating the Clinton thing, social conservatives were persuaded that - coupled with the FBI files thing and others - Clinton's actions showed a pattern towards the abuse of power.

With regard to the idea that the Iraq war and the so-called War on Terror is more important than fighting over abortion and gay rights, you'd be surprised how many evangelicals would agree with you.

As I mentioned before, if the Democratic Party loosened their hard line on those topics, they would be stoppable in 2008.

The problem is that most Christians won't replace one kind of killing (Iraq) with another (unfettered access to abortion). For everybody's sake, the Dems have to give a little ground to people who have deeply held values on that subject if they want their support at the polls.

Thats precisely why Jesus is a Cunt. And the Christianity based on this Cuntish self-righteous bollocks is nothing but a religion of them.

One can't really blame Marc for this nonsense anymore. The Mods here have let it go on for far too long, while people get banned for saying far less.

Before I get the inevitable ban I've been secretly wishing for, i'll just make one last explaination for the sane people who think I am being an asshole.

The killing in Iraq is evil, abortions are evil, both take lives without the consent of the person alive.

Yes both are evil and I would rather neither existed.

Lets pretend for a second that God sent his son, Jesus to earth to give humanity a message - lets frame this as wishing to give humanity knowledge and wisdom.

God, and Jesus being 'God' as the morons would have us believe - is all knowing. He would know before he decided to manifest in the flesh, what the consequences of this action would be.

He would know in advance, that after appearing in the loin cloth, that the Catholic Church would spend 1000 years killing, murdering, burning and pillaging over 50 million people in his name- regardless of whether someone perverted his message or misunderstood it or him - he knew it was going to happen - and obviously God endorsed this and decided it was right.

He also knew that 2000 years from his magical appearance, that the current era of people - his true church as they proclaim themselves - wouldn't be able to tell the difference between killing thousands of innocent people who had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction - WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS and the much lesser EVIL of killing a few cells of an embryo. Both Bad - BUT NOT IN THE SAME LEAGUE.

So to enjoy their stupid selfish gratification of pretending that they are a special race of Gods chosen people, they are prepared to let a much more terrible evil to happen at the expense of a lesser one - simply because the word 'evil' appears in both sides of the equation. Maybe not the message of Jesus, but nonetheless, Jesus fully knowing in advance, that this would be the outcome of his followers. Jesus knew in advance his message would not only fail to deliver the wisdom it promised (and thus proving to people who do want knowledge and wisdom that he is "a false CUNT not to be followed or believed") - but would actually make his followers ridicuously stupid. All known in advance

Regardless of whether this is the message Jesus bought or whether it has been corrupted by the stupidity and ignorance of his followers - He still knew that this would be the outcome of his divine appearance. Jesus would know that humanity was not capable of understanding his message - so to deliver it was not an act of love or salvation, but an act of EVIL Spiteful Nastyness.

Then there is gnostic Jesus. I thought this was the path. Wrong. Gnostic Jesus exists to entrap the people who aren't insanely stupid, but require a more sophisticated trap, before they fall head first into it. The end result is that for every one claiming Gnosis, all they really have done is become an educated asshat, stuck up their own ass, far more concerned with 'appearing' to be wise with clever little devious apologetics for some crap stories than actually being wise. For these morans to go around climing they have had visions of being awake - while everyone else is asleep - is rank and file stupid hypocrisy - and for the more experienced of them - "intentional" hypocrasy - because it soon becomes apparent that they are nothing but a 'sophisticated apologetic' for God's evil to deceive the people who aren't swayed by the Fundie argument. Infact, their Jesus is probably the biggest Cunt of them all - "Knowing that God is a Cunt and still maintaining the path IS worse than genuinely wanting to do right, but being ignorant of Gods Cuntish doctrine"

Or there is the fact, that Jesus never existed anyway, and therefore its rather trivial to call the sun a CUNT, but im sure the sun doesn't have an opinion. In this case, the actions and morals derived from the beliefs of the followers, have elevated the meme Jesus to be the all time worlds nasty CUNT. Purely a spiritual reflection of themselves.

Anyway you look at it Jesus (and God) are major league CUNTS. And I have no problem telling it like it is regardless of the minor consequence.

Whatever way you see Jesus, he hasn't delivered the knowledge and wisdom he promised - a liar, cheat and deceiver. Infact Jesus has bought entirely the opposite.

Go read your BIBLE Frank right from start to finish - Dont skip the parts where God is needlessly murdering thousands of people, because they wouldn't acknowledge him - No-one with a functioning brain cell accepts a psychotic Evil God as the real deal - dont skip the parts where he tells his people to murder all the men and children and take the virgins as sex slaves - , if the world was created 6000 years ago, as you would protest, then right from the start of the universe God was being a cunt - and sending his Son to Earth, was purely the act of God wishing to be an ever bigger Cunt than he already was.

Fortunatelty, i know the Bible, Jesus and God are false CUNTS, and the only sane thing to do is stand diametrically opposed to it - not because I think there is some reward for it in another life, but because it is the right thing to do, because I am human and not a fundie animal in pretentious denial of self.

Have you just admitted to being a troll?

not at all -- sometimes you get stuck in a rut of talking to brain dead morons and you wish someone would give you a kick up the backside to wake you up. Unfortunately I am felling a bit lazy at the moment, and cant quite peel myself from the keys to do something more useful.

Jesus was a cunt and iTunes was made in realbasic. Courageous words of wisdom from MarcUK.

I want to keep the thread focused on its topic, but suffice it to say that the God of the Bible has never 'needlessly' ordered the murders of anyone, nor approved of the taking of 'sex slaves'.

Right, because there is some devious spiritual messeage you can attatch to it to make it all flowery and smelling of roses - or is it that you really believe that God only gets his rabid-rabble to kill people after they've been given a chance.

"Hey im God"

"Nah, dont think so"

"Right Squad - go in kill all the men, women and children, but keep the virgins as your wives"

"But...."

"hey you had your chance..Now die. Im God, because I say I am, if you dont believe me I have a band of psychotics ready to prove it."

--FRANK.---

I hope there is a God - because when we all die, I cant wait for him to show his true nature - and forgive you without condition or consequence - for being a fool.

There's a really amazing novel by Jose Saramago, Nobel laureate, called 'The Gospel According to Jesus Christ'. In it, Jesus finally sits down with his father on a rowing boat in the middle of the Sea of Galillee, and says 'OK, what do you want?' God says 'Well, I want you to found a church in My name.' Jesus says 'I don't want to do it. There will be so much bloodshed and pain if I do,' and God says 'You bet,' and then goes on to list, in alphabetical order, a few hundred years-worth of saints and the bloody ways they met their martydom. It takes pages and pages and pages. He's about to get on to the massacres, wars, crusades and whatnot and Jesus basically says 'You cunt.'

Jesus gets the genius idea that if he gets the bravest of his disciples, Judas, to turn him in to the Romans, he'll be crucified and he can save humanity from the centuries of cruelty that his father's reconciled to inflicting. He's already on the cross before he realises he's played into his father's hands exactly, and there was nothing he could ever have done.

I say go easy on Jesus.

And meanwhile, back on topic, the Republican party's long spoon is melting at the business end owing to the proximity of its supper partner, Beelzebub...

It's creative, though, isn't it.

I'd like to say that i could find that somewhat moving, for a minute I did.

But all I can really think, is that some devious bitch has schemed a way to envoke a false sense of empathy for Jesus in it not being his fault at all, and has created a sophisticated apologetic for those that aren't buying the simpler ones.

Sorry.

You know Brussel, one of those things was stupid, and i acknowledge that, and have even taken the piss out of myself for saying so.

However, and, you're showing about as much wise discrimination as Frank here, while one of these statements was idiotic and foolish, no one was really harmed, and im quite prepared to call myself a moron and a fool - but the other thing isn't in the same league,

People are dying all over the world today and have been for 2000 years because there exists this perverse story of someones imaginary friend coming down to Earth.

the RealBasic thing was foolish and you can laugh at me if you want - I can laugh at myself too so thats OK. However. If you're in the vicinity of a MOAB because someones imaginary friend told them to invade your country - its deadly serious.

Its time for the world to get on the right side of the fence concerning 'imaginary friends' - Now I know I could spend the rest of my life ranting here about Sun Gods and have it make no difference to anything that happens in the wider world - but to want to be as good a human as possible, even if its utterly pointless and psychologically selfish - I've seen the side I the fence I want to be on.

How is this sweeping generalization not foolish?

Well, one could make the decision to think that he did not exist at all. It isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility because what real evidence was there that he really existed. Saying that it says so in the Bible isn't proof, it is what some human wrote down. if that is the only proof you have, then Pinocchio also exists, because he is a book too.

Now, if it is a matter of faith, then that is OK as well. Faith does not have to live in the realm of reason. It is a belief, and beliefs are not something that has to be proven.

Also, it isn't a sweeping generalization that he made. Most wars, especially in the period of time of 800 A.D. to 1500 A.D. (generally) were started because someone didn't like the other person's God. The Holy Wars, the Crusades, the 100 Year War, etc. All because of Religious reasons. Yes, there were other reasons, but the catalyst has been almost always a religious reason. Hell, even the Terrorists have called for a Jihad: "Holy War".

Religion has been the scapegoat for many a bloody battle, and in order to evolve, we need to separate these actions from those of religious actions. Until we do, we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

The means matter more than the ends, bra, especially while the means are still in the present. I think it'd be grand if christianity weren't so prevalent. But, your current approach of offending religion (and calling the icon of their faith a cunt is certainly offensive), it isn't going to change anyone to believe less in Jesus, or whatever they believe. And you have to remember that the beliefs don't make a lot of sense to us nonbelievers; they don't think of all knowing to be the same as he recognized and had the ability to prevent future horrors carried out in his name. I may be mischaracterizing them, but the faithful decide among themselves which verses are allegory and which are history [and they often disagree]. And really, your chances of affecting peoples core beliefs across some loosely connected tubes, its destined to be unsuccessful.

There are huge amounts of evidence Jesus existed. Few reputable scholars dispute the fact.
If you believe Shakespeare wrote his plays, you should have no problem in believing Jesus existed, even if you don't believe in him as Lord and Saviour.

Wars have always existed during mankind time on the earth, and since the consequences are so grave religion is always invoked to justify the decision. That is not the same as saying religion is the cause of war.

The Crusades (which were a pushback to Muslim takeovers of previous Christian lands) is justifiably termed a religious war. But I would dispute the suggestion that the "catalyst for wars are almost always religious"

When the first Bush decided to invade Iraq, Billy Graham spent the night at the White House.
That was termed by detractors to be about oil, not religion. But it nevertheless involved using religion to build public support.

Take it somewhere else please.

how is it not wise?

You either have the choice to create a delusion for yourself so that you can find some flowery romance to justify to yourself that things aren't as bad as reality, or you can say "NO this is bullshit and I want to change it"

How many people is too many to die 10,1000,1million, 50 million? - just so that some people can have their little imaginary friend that makes their life worth living?

My answer is 1 person is too many.

If people went around killing in the name of SnowWhite, spent 2000 years in a campaign of brutally convincing people to die, and kill for the meme of SnowWhite - does that make it right? Is it really that BAD if some followers of Snow White have thier illusions dashed when some prick on the net tells them that handsome princes cannot really kiss you out off your coma? - If it stops the killing?

I concur. Is the Foley thing a Democratic or Republican October Surprise?