Contact Us


« Thursday open thread | Main | McCaskill: Talent should take a stand »

August 31, 2006



An even more interesting story

"Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."
Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it is reasonable for Bush to presume that Democrats will try to cut off funding for the war if they take over Congress, noting that 54 House Democrats voted against a spending bill for military operations last year."

[ jenniferm: I deleted last sentence for its borderline vulargity. You can be more clever than that--Keith ]


Little Feat fan, eh?

Old Drum

Jenniferm, of course they do.

You will note in the Will piece Talent talks about repealing the estate tax.

I sure hope our crack reporters can find ONE farmer in Missouri that will lose his farm if the present estate tax is not repealed.

If our good junior Senator speaks the truth, this should be easy, right?

"Paris Hilton Benefit Act"

To pick up on the metaphor, why should Congress be more concerned about protecting Paris Hilton's inheritance than grandma's Social Security?

The Friends of Paris Hilton realize that as federal deficits mount and rising Medicare costs loom, the case for the total repeal of the estate tax grows steadily weaker. That's why they're hoping they can sucker defenders of estate taxes into a so-called compromise that gives away the store -- the store, in this case, going to Neiman Marcus shoppers, not to those who rely on Target.


Claire McCaskill is a classic tax-and-spend liberal. Just like her "hero" Howard Dean.


Those of you not in favor of repealing the estate tax are being awefully cavelier with other peoples money.


Lib, that kind of empty rhetoric "classic tax-and-spend liberal" used to work back in the days of Reagan and even Bush the 1st. (Rush turned it into a career). But unless you're Rumpelstiltskin just awakened from your quarter-century nap, you have to know that it won't work anymore.

That's because his highness King George the 2nd has broken all spending records (by surpassing drunken sailor status early in his first term), and pandering to the super rich on issues like abolishing the estate tax. (Talent's about to vote on that, assuming he's not too busy parachuting into Missouri counties...)

Oh yeah. It also didn't help that Bush and Talent distracted us into a war in Iraq, costly in both billions of dollars and thousands of American (not rich) lives.

Rural Missourians were still being fooled in 2004. Just don't expect them to make the same mistake twice.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"

"I sure hope our crack reporters can find ONE farmer in Missouri that will lose his farm if the present estate tax is not repealed."

Old Drum: That's a great question, but it should be aimed at Jim Talent. Let's see if Helling or Kraske are man enough to ask Talent to do that. It sure ought to be easy. Not. The GOP used this same line of snot back in 2000 and not even the National Farm Bureau could find a single farmer affected by the so-called "death tax." It's a myth. So come on Dave and Steve, if Talent's going to make the claim, do you boys have the guts to dare him to back it up?


annony -
Nice try. The estate tax isn't about other people's money. It's about other rich people's PARENTS' money. The spoiled children didn't get it the old fashioned way. They didn't earn it. Your sanctimony is misplaced.

E.J. Dionne summed up this issue very well in the above linked article:
"Those who vote to repeal the estate tax this week will be sending a clear message: They see the "crisis" in Social Security as serious enough to justify benefit cuts and private accounts. But it's not serious enough to warrant a minor inconvenience to those who plan to live on their parents' wealth."

The question for Talent and McCaskill is really "Whom do you serve?" If Talent votes to abolish this eminently fair tax, he will only confirm what we already know. He serves the same constituency Bush does -- anyone who can afford to give him the Big Bucks.

Grant Moritz

And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons"

-Iraq is looking more and more like another Vietnam, and this administration is critizing others for not learning history's lessons.


County you fail to realize that it is the parents maoney, and they should be able to do with it as they please. Why should the govt be in the business of determining what I do with my estate? It's so easy to tax the rich because there are so few of them.



All you ‘brain donors’ on the left who do your ‘research’ by reading the NYT

Why is it that family farms are put into jeopardy by an estate tax?

Because by definition a farm is made up of hard assets the land and equipment.

Selling any of it to pay taxes would imperil the ability of the farm to continue as a going concern. Even if these farms have enough ‘liquid assets’ to pay the tax, that money would be the ‘seed’ funds for the next year, and using it to pay this tax would again imperil the functioning of the farm

If we (the Republicans) have our way, this all goes away.

If the Democrats have their way it will go back to as it was on January 1, 2011. Before 2001, taxes starting on farms valued more than 600,000. Which is 100 acres at 6,000 each…not big and not very expensive. The top rate for this tax will increase to 60 percent, and the value of an estate exempt from taxation will shrink to $1 million, which is less than it is today.

“As noted above, the estate tax is scheduled to be phased out under EGTRRA until it is eliminated in 2010, but then it will be reinstated in 2011.”

And the report by the CBO was written for the Democrats

Kill it now.


Try as you might, tsquare and annoy (love the name), you can't make the estate tax an issue about anybody but the super rich. That is the ONLY reason the "Paris Hilton Benefit Act" is even under consideration, and everybody knows it.

"Why should the govt be in the business of determining what I do with my estate?"...

Because your estate is taxable. You act like just because a tax exists it is somehow "unAmerican". Any tax. The American Revolution was about getting rid of taxation WITHOUT representation, not taxation itself.

The Selfish Right prefers to ignore these facts (and elect big spenders like Talent and Bush) while working up a phony lather about "other people's money."

"It's so easy to tax the rich because there are so few of them."


That statement is so vapid. Easy to tax the rich? Are you kidding me? The rich cannot conceive of a tax shelter/tax dodge so heinously unfair they wouldn't take it (ahem) buy a Congress and President to make it so.

"A full 71 percent of the additional benefits for eliminating the estate tax, which the GOP has cravenly marketed to voters as the "death tax," would go to those who stand to inherit more than $10 million.

All the rest goes to estates worth more than $5 million, all of which mostly represents money that has never been taxed before -- things like stocks, bonds and real estate which are not taxed until they’re sold."

--- from The Mercury

And this book (from the 90's but still relevant) should be required reading by all in the Selfish Right (such as yourselves) as well as the Deluded Left: "Why Americans Hate Politics" by E.J. Dionne.


I don't care how big the estate is. Could be $1 million or $50 million. I don't care. And don't kid yourself about stocks and bonds and real estate that isn't taxed before they are sold. They where bought with income which is taxed. BTW I don't care if the basais of those assets becomes zero when they are passed on.


Tsquare and Annony, it's Conrad Hiltons 40 mil, not Paris'. She doesn't get that money untill Dad is dead, when it is transferred to her, by his estate, when it is then taxed just like any other income she receives that year. So after the $2 mil exemption, she'd pay an estate tax on the remaining 38 mil @ approx 50%, depending on trust structure, blah, blah, blah, but she would end up with 21 MILLION. And when you can find one single example of a family farm worth $2 mil that isn't already incorporated, which completly changes all the rules of estates, I'll eat your hat. And the corporate rules of estate are several vol. long, much too long for your simple logic of mine, mine, mine.


Even if people are still left with huge amounts of money, the most important point is that private people (and people who own private industries) can do nearly anything better than government. Whether it's $1 or $100 million, I would rather Paris Hilton have the money (as I hold my nose, yes) than government. And that stands, whether the government is run by Republicans or Democrats.

Government does not feed the poor, build buildings, or teach our children better than people who decide to do these things on their own.

Phyllis Nudsakk

You are all funny. You get so worked up over such little things as "estate tax" this and "warmonger" that. Can't you see it's better that the top 1% of our population gets more tax breaks? Can't you? I mean, Bush says it's true. Rove and Talent and Cheyney and Frist and DeLay say it's true. They're such honest and trustworthy Christians (so they say) so it MUST be true.

Old Drum

Tsquare, you seem to know what you are writing about. Can you give us ONE farm in Missouri that is threatened by a repeal of the estate tax? Just one?

In the meantime, as our other friends are observing here, why is it soooooooo important to give Paris Hilton this tax cut?

Jim Satterfield

Of course the problem with the claims of the conservatives posting here is that the Democrats are more than willing to see exemptions made in the estate tax that would ensure that no family farms or small businesses are lost because of taxes. But that isn't what the Republicans want. In addition they'd like to see no taxes on capital gains. Of course should they achieve the latter goal the extremely wealthy will restructure their income so that it is all considered capital gains and they won't pay a penny in taxes other than sales and property taxes. And I won't be surprised if they come up with a way to dodge the latter.

exiled kansan

Why is it assumed that the poor have the right to take what was not earned by them? If I acquire great wealth I should have the right to do with it as I please...even if that means gift it to charity or a relative. Consider the loss of freedom that must take place in order to implement an estate tax. For starters, your right to privacy is violated and your right to property is violated.

Why? Because people are jelous. Most of the above posts don't argue that we need the revenue but instead make statements about how much Paris Hilton will recieve if her parents give the money to her. Most of us should aspire to give our children a better life than we have. Most people focus on what others have and not on what they COULD have if they would apply themselves.

Call me an out of vogue libertarian, but I would rather Paris Hilton have her millions and my millions of fellow Americans have their FREEDOM.


Those of you not in favor of repealing the estate tax are being awefully cavelier with other peoples money.

As is our President.

The comments to this entry are closed.