FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 06/12/2002 8:23:11 AM PDT by mykdsmom
We need your help. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has scheduled a vote for this afternoon on permanently eliminating the Death Tax.
He has scheduled this vote on short notice to short circuit citizen pressure on wavering senators.
Please call your senators immediately and tell them to support full and permanent repeal of the Death Tax. For more information, visit:
http://www.cse.org/deathtax/death_tax.php">
We need calls into the following offices:
ARKANSAS:
Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln
TEL: 202-224-4843
FAX: 202-228-1371
ARIZONA:
Senator John McCain
TEL: 202-224-2235
FAX: 202-228-2862
CALIFORNIA:
Senator Dianne Feinstein
TEL: 202-224-3841
FAX: 202-228-3954
DELAWARE:
Senator Thomas R. Carper
TEL: 202-224-2441
FAX: 202-228-2190
FLORIDA:
Senator Bill Nelson
TEL: 202-224-5274
FAX: 202-228-2183
GEORGIA:
Senator Max Cleland
TEL: 202-224-3521
FAX: 202-224-0072
and
Senator Zell Miller
TEL: 202-224-3643
FAX: 202-228-2090
ILLINOIS:
Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald
TEL: 202-224-2854
FAX: 202-228-1372
INDIANA:
Senator Evan Bayh
TEL: 202-224-5623
FAX: 202-228-1377
LOUISIANA:
Senator John B. Breaux
TEL: 202-224-4623
FAX: 202-228-2577
and
Senator Mary L. Landrieu
TEL: 202-224-5824
FAX: 202-224-9735
MAINE:
Senator Susan M. Collins
TEL: 202-224-2523
FAX: 202-224-2693
and
Senator Olympia J. Snowe
TEL: 202-224-5344
FAX: 202-224-1946
MISSOURI:
Senator Jean Carnahan
TEL: 202-224-6154
FAX: 202-228-0043
MONTANA:
Senator Max Baucus
TEL: 202-224-2651
FAX: 202-228-3687
NEBRASKA:
Senator Ben Nelson
TEL: 202-224-6551
FAX: 202-228-0012
NEW JERSEY:
Senator Robert G. Torricelli
TEL: 202-224-3224
FAX: 202-224-8567
OHIO:
Senator Mike DeWine
TEL: 202-224-2315
FAX: 202-224-6519
and
Senator George Voinovich
TEL: 202-224-3353
FAX: 202-228-1382
OREGON:
Senator Gordon H. Smith
TEL: 202-224-3753
FAX: 202-228-3997
and
Senator Ron Wyden
TEL: 202-224-5244
FAX: 202-228-2717
PENNSYLVANIA:
Senator Arlen Specter
TEL: 202-224-4254
FAX: 202-228-1229
RHODE ISLAND:
Senator Lincoln Chafee
TEL: 202-224-2921
FAX: 202-228-2853
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Senator Tim Johnson
TEL: 202-224-5842
FAX: 202-228-5765
VERMONT:
Senator James M. Jeffords
TEL: 202-224-5141
FAX: 202-228-0776
WASHINGTON:
Senator Patty Murray
TEL: 202-224-2621
FAX: 202-224-0238
MKM
If we eliminate the death tax, or any other tax, lets identify the spending that will be cut to offset the revenue at the same time.
They can start by eliminating the farm give-a-way. BTW, I noticed that Little Chuckie and Hillbillery aren't on the contact list. I'm sending a fax anyway.
Congress will spend the sum total of whatever they can receive PLUS whatever they can borrow.
I used to agree with you...now all I see are republicans telling everyone that they can drive a mercedes and nobody has to pay for it...I am all for tax cuts...the more the better...just cut the spending first.
What you say is logical in your personal life but illogical in DC. The only way to achieve cost reductions is to force the issue and the only way to force the issue is to cut revenues.
Part B:
Congress will spend the sum total of whatever they can receive PLUS whatever they can borrow.
Isn't this a contradiction? OTOH, you say that cutting revenues deters spending. But does it? Can you show me any examples of when that has actually been the case? In the last 75 years? And then, you point out that Congress will spend all its revenues and whatever it can borrow. But what is the limit on what it can borrow? Is there a limit?
I'm with freeper12. The GOP plays a game when it contends that tax cutting leads to fiscal discipline. I haven't seen that happen. It seems the choices are taxes or deficits, and either way, we pay. It's a shell game. Pay now or pay later. Isn't it?
Nice try. Your statement is the typical Liberal extremist trick to change the subject and avoid reducing the power of the Government.
The best thing for America is to shrink the size of government by cutting off its food supply, i.e. cut taxes. We'll worry about Liberal diversionary tactics regarding spending reductions when the Government is nearly terminally starved of funds and the Liberals are more desperate to negotiate.
???
Hey dipsh*t, can you give any examples of when a tax-cut actually CUT the size of government...I enjoyed my $600 tax-rebate I got last year, but where is the corresponding reduction in govt that will pay for it?...talk about a moron...keep spending money and collect less revenue...Yes, lets all quit our jobs and live off our credit cards!
I have two questions about this:
1. Isn't it the Republican position that cutting taxes increases revenues, by promoting growth, creating more taxpayers, etc? Isn't that the record of the Reagan cuts? If a tax cut increases revenues, it's not "cutting the food supply", it's increasing it. What do you make of that?
2. Can you show me a time when cutting revenues resulted in cutting spending?
I agree. Uncalled for behavior.
Cut the govt to the bone first and THEN send me my tax-cut.
That sounds like a Democratic type inititive. I'm not calling you a Democrat. But justifing not taxing the same money multiple times by saying in effect "we have to pay for it" is just wrong IMO.
Cutting spending is a quite different topic, one that the people of the country don't seem to be interested in.
I don't think those are the only two choices. Another choice would be to un-elect anyone in any party who thinks that spending isn't part of the equation. "Taxes or deficits" ignores the correct choice. Spend less.
Thank god for that...that would be hitting below the belt. My point has nothing to do with the death-tax in particular...its about all taxes in general...cut them all, but then do the really hard work of cutting the spending. Republicans are all for cutting taxes (which is easy) and not very disciplined with cutting spending...not a very responsible strategy.
Stop taking my money in the first place then you won't have to send me anything.
One reason I'm not a Republican.
Yeah, but then we have to play the cards we're dealt. When Congress is in session, spending money, creating tax policy, etc., we have to deal with it as is. Plus, I can't unelect YOUR Senator.
"Taxes or deficits" ignores the correct choice. Spend less.
Right. But they aren't doing it. They are only giving us those two choices.
Not to be picky, but isn't this the exact opposite of your first position? You wanted to cut the spending first and then cut the taxes, right?
Right...do them simultaneously, one first and then the other, it doesn't matter as LONG AS THEY BOTH GET DONE. Geeze, you guys are nitpicking semantics and missing the point entirely.
They don't have to give us anything. They serve at our pleasure. Fire them, that's the choice we have that they can't control. (not that they aren't trying with CFR)
You fire yours and I'll fire mine. In the absence of that, they will continue to steal our money and give it to people to whom it does not belong in return for power.
If you play their game by their rules, you lose.
I didn't miss any point. I simply disagree with the premise because it will never happen.
It's my money, it belongs to me, not them. I want them to stop taking it at gunpoint no matter what else they do.
I can't control what they do, only what I do. If I have control of my own money I can make plans to deal with their policies, whatever they may be. But I don't have a quid quo pro about keeping it in the first place. I don't need them to make certain arrangements before I can claim my right to my own labor.
You are playing into their hands when you get bogged down in the negotiations about how you will be allowed to keep your own property under certain circumstances which they control. It's a sure loser.
Being taxed in any form so that I can service the nation's debt, which occurs because we spend more than we have, is also a bullshit tax. I don't care what form it takes. If given the choice between paying X, or paying X + Interest, I will choose X. Naturally, if someone gives me the choice of X-any amount, I'd take it.
But this is a shell game. The elimination of this tax doesn't represent a decrease in spending, or even a decrease in taxation. The lost revenue will reappear somewhere else, and will be paid for plus interest. I don't anticipate receiving any inheritance any time soon, so why should I give a rat's ass about cutting the tax, when chances are I will end up PAYING FOR IT?
That's incorrect. 98 Senators, and close to 500 Congressman serve totally outside my sphere of influence as a voter. I can elect two Senators, and one Congressman. I have to play the hand I'm dealt.
Fire them, that's the choice we have that they can't control. (not that they aren't trying with CFR)
There are large gaps in between those elections, called terms. Some of them are for six years. Some less. But in all cases, those people make budget law for the length of their term. The cards we're dealt. Saying we should fire them is like saying we should cut spending. Yeah, we should. But we haven't.
You fire yours and I'll fire mine. In the absence of that, they will continue to steal our money and give it to people to whom it does not belong in return for power.
Exactly. Take this tax cut. This is giving money back to people, right? Problem is, the spending won't be cut, the deficit will increase, the actual liability will be the old tax revenue plus interest, and someone (probably suckers like you or me) will have to pay for it. It's a shell game. It is completely rational for someone expecting a large inheritance to support this. But I haven't heard one good reason why I should. I know, it's heresy to say so, but there it is.
Agree completely. But they already do control your money wether you like it or not, even if they "let" you keep more now, they are simulataneously running a tab (deficit spending) that will become payable either by you or your children or your grand-children someday in the future. So they are not really letting you keep your money...they are just letting you pay later.
And don't forget. When you pay later, you pay the revenue plus interest because of debt service. If it was his money before, it's his money plus more of his money later.
No contradiction. Even the gov't cannot spend more than it has as resources.
Can you show me any examples of when that has actually been the case? In the last 75 years?
No, because revenues and borrowing ability have never been reduced. But I can deomstrate numerous examples in business and in personal lives where expenses are cut drastically when revenues cease. What was once a necessity becomes a luxury.
And then, you point out that Congress will spend all its revenues and whatever it can borrow. But what is the limit on what it can borrow? Is there a limit?
Yes, the market and the political realm both place limits. The market would be the theoretical maximmum, while the political may be lower.
I'm with freeper12. The GOP plays a game when it contends that tax cutting leads to fiscal discipline. I haven't seen that happen. It seems the choices are taxes or deficits, and either way, we pay.
No, your leaving out the choice of cut the revenues and force the choice to cut the spending.
It's a shell game. Pay now or pay later. Isn't it?
If there is no cut in spending, yes. But cutting revenues does decrease the available funds to spend. In addition, although its off point, use of debt financing in a growing economy with a growing population actually does lower the per person cost of government. Debt isn't a bad thing so long as assets are gained with the debt. Much of our military spending is an example whereby the money is spent on assets that have future value.
Can you show me any examples of when that has actually been the case? In the last 75 years?
You answered:
No, because revenues and borrowing ability have never been reduced.
I don't see why I would pursue this course any further. I'm not playing "gotcha", I don't pretend to be an expert at all, but if it has never happened before...
Yes, the market and the political realm both place limits. The market would be the theoretical maximmum, while the political may be lower.
Forgive me, but this is fudge. There is no objective limit to what the government can borrow. We have no way of knowing how near that limit we are.
No, your leaving out the choice of cut the revenues and force the choice to cut the spending.
We have already established that there are no examples of a cut in government revenues resulting in a cut in government spending. Haven't we?
I ask:
It's a shell game. Pay now or pay later. Isn't it?
You answer:
If there is no cut in spending, yes.
That's what I thought. It's a shell game. And since I am not an inheritor, I am going to call my senator in opposition. I want to cut in my taxes without any resultant extra debt service that I end up paying. I certainly don't want to pay the freight on someone else's tax cut.
But cutting revenues does decrease the available funds to spend.
Without having a known borrowing limit, this can't possibly be true.
In addition, although its off point, use of debt financing in a growing economy with a growing population actually does lower the per person cost of government.
Without debating the point, because I don't have the information to do so, I will note that the point has been conceded that a tax cut without a spending cut will increase the deficit, which will increase borrowing, which will increase the interest on the debt, which will increase the deficit some more. And we have agreed, correct me if I am wrong, that taxpayers will pay the freight.
Bottom line: This isn't a tax cut. It's tax redistribution.
MKM
MKM
MKM
That's incorrect. 98 Senators, and close to 500 Congressman serve totally outside my sphere of influence as a voter. I can elect two Senators, and one Congressman.
I said OUR pleasure, as in the people of the country. I thought you understood that I wasn't talking about you personally. If the country wants to stop the spending it can happen almost overnight. The people don't seem to want it.
There are large gaps in between those elections, called terms. Some of them are for six years. Some less. But in all cases, those people make budget law for the length of their term.
The mere threat of throwing them out of office by a sufficient number of voters will make them change almost overnight. They only care about being re-elected and will do anything to saty in office. Even cutting spending and taxes. There is not sufficient voters caring about it at this time. Try to change their minds and stop haggling with those in power.
Exactly. Take this tax cut. This is giving money back to people, right? Problem is, the spending won't be cut, the deficit will increase, the actual liability will be the old tax revenue plus interest, and someone (probably suckers like you or me) will have to pay for it.
I'll take my chances.
It is completely rational for someone expecting a large inheritance to support this. But I haven't heard one good reason why I should.
Ah, the politics of envy. It's not my money they are stealing, it's those damn rich people, so screw em. On the one hand you worry about who is going to pay the interest on the debt you think is inevitable, but totally disregard the theft of property of others because it doesn't effect you. Which is it?
I know, it's heresy to say so, but there it is.
You said it, not me. I don't know who it's heresy for, but it's not heresy for people who believe in the redistribution of wealth and the confiscation of property, which is all the death tax is.
Where you stand on that is open to speculation, but it seems from your admission that it might be in agreement with the "heresy".
And just for the record, the death tax is a loser for the government, it cost more to collect it than it produces in net revenue to the government. It's all about envy and establishing who really owns wealth, hint,,,it's not the people.
If there was no death confiscation, they wouldn't be able to get it from me when I'm dead.
I never said that. I simply said I don't stand to gain from it. Since I view this as tax redistribution rather than tax cutting, I don't see why I would want to transfer a tax liability from someone else to me, regardless of how much wealth the other person has. I don't suffer from that sort of altruism.
On the one hand you worry about who is going to pay the interest on the debt you think is inevitable, but totally disregard the theft of property of others because it doesn't effect you. Which is it?
The "theft" occurs regardless of who pays the tax. In fact, it doesn't even matter how much revenue comes in. They'll borrow the difference. And with the Social Security program forecasts looking like they do, it will only get worse.The debt is inevitable, and I expect to pay for it.
The denial of a budget that requests 5-6% happens about 2 out of three years. When the budget is denied the various agencies figure out how to do with less and so far no one has noticed less service.
As to borrowing, yes their is a limit as to what can be borrowed for both state and federal and its related to the market. In the case of both the more that is borrowed the higher the risks and the interest rates. The higher the rates the less likely it is to justify borrowing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.