« ERIK PAULSEN ENDORSED BY FORMER CONGRESSMAN BILL FRENZEL | Home | MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR NOT “OFFENDED” BY STERIOD USE »
NRCC PRESS RELEASE: “WALZ VOTES FOR TAX INCREASES OVER CLEAN AMT PATCH”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | December 13, 2007
Washington- Rep. Tim Walz (MN-01) last night proved once again his commitment to raising taxes, even at the expense of hard-working Americans. Instead of voting for a clean Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch without tax increases that actually has a chance of being signed into law, Walz instead voted for burdening tax increases that will negatively impact the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and the American economy (House Roll Call 1153).
Walz voted to kill an AMT patch free of tax increases, which passed overwhelmingly in the Senate last week (House Roll Call 1152). Walz could have broken with his leadership to ensure 20 million middle-class Americans would not get hit by an unnecessary tax increase. Instead, Walz and the Democrats continue to block this legislation, risking that American families will face, on average, a $2,000 tax increase.
“While Walz and the Democrats try to rush out of town with nothing to show except for a laundry list of failed accomplishments and broken promises, middle-class Americans will spend their holiday season worrying about how they will pay for even more of the Democrats’ tax increases,” said NRCC Communications Director Jessica Boulanger. “Tim Walz has shirked his responsibility to do the people’s business in Washington, and his constituents in Minnesota will certainly register their discontent on Election Day.”
When will Tim Walz put the hard-working middle-class citizens of Minnesota above his Democrat leaders in Washington?
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 41 Comments »
41 Responses to “NRCC PRESS RELEASE: “WALZ VOTES FOR TAX INCREASES OVER CLEAN AMT PATCH””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:33 AM
In fairness, the Senate plan would raise the annual deficit and increase the national debt. The ideal plan would fix AMT by cutting other areas of government….
This is something that President Bush and Republicans refuse to do. Of course the Democrats could never even think of doing that.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:52 PM
The taxes that would be collected are taxes that should have been collected in the first place. The House bill closes the loophole for Hedge Fund managers and this would not add to the deficit. Bush has his veto pen ready, if there is any ink left, because he does not want to make those that should be paying taxes, pay them. He would rather force millions of middle class Americans to pay more taxes and blame the Democrats, than to have those that should pay, give forth their fair share.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Sounds like the Democrats are screwed. Either cut spending or let the AMT hit the middle class.
One idea makes the base mad, one idea makes the public mad. Good luck with that one.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:54 PM
From the congressional office: 12 December 2007
Congressman Walz Votes For Middle Class Tax Relief for Millions of Americans
WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Walz voted again to provide tax relief to tens of millions of middle class families who would otherwise pay higher taxes under the alternative minimum tax (AMT) this year. The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a one year extension of AMT relief for nonrefundable personal credits and increases the AMT exemption amount to $66,250 for joint filers and $44,350 for single filers to ensure that no additional taxpayers are liable for the AMT this year.
This bill will ensure that 23 million middle class Americans will be protected from the alternative minimum tax this year and it will save nearly 44, 000 families in southern Minnesota from being caught by the AMT. Passing this critical tax relief was the right thing to do.
Short Summary of the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007: In addition to providing middle class tax relief to tens of millions of middle class taxpayers next year, this legislation:
* Expands the refundable child tax credit to provide relief to more than 12 million children
* Closes loophole allowing hedge fund managers to defer compensation in offshore accounts
Again, MDE has it all WRONG!!! Tim Walz voted Yes for TAX RELIEF!!! Both John Kline and Michelle Bachman voted NO for Temporary Tax Relief!! They are the ones who voted to have Middle Class Americans get taxed higher!!!
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 4351: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Typical political games.
The Democrats want to fix AMT by raising other taxes. BAD IDEA…
Meanwhile the Republicans want to fix AMT by increasing the deficit. ANOTHER BAD IDEA
This is why Ron Paul is gaining popularity. The rest of the Washington crowd looks like crooks.
December 14th, 2007 at 4:03 AM
kkkathy, I take it you can’t READ. Walz voted against the AMT bill that DID NOT increase taxes via a different method.
Next time before telling somebody else they are all wrong you should take a reading comprehension class.
December 14th, 2007 at 7:46 AM
When is this guy going to get his nose out of Pelosi’s ass? I can’t recall any major vote that he hasn’t been in complete lockstep with that left wing witch of the west.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Nice find Michael!! [Ctl+C] [Alt+tab] [Ctl+V].
Nice and hot off the GOP wires.
Your job rocks!
December 14th, 2007 at 2:06 PM
kathy,
It’s pretty sad that you buy everything that is written in a partisan press release. Let’s look at where the AMT came from in the first place: the Democrats in the 1993-94 Congress and Bill Clinton. If we wanted to cut taxes for the middle class, we wouldn’t have supported the AMT in the first place, which traps people who shouldn’t be paying higher taxes.
As for the hedge fund managers and the other limousine liberals, they should feel free to write as many checks to the federal government as they like. People like Warren Buffet who makes almost nothing for a salary and instead takes stock options that he’s taxed at the Capital gains rate. He should donate $1 billion to the federal government tomorrow if he thinks taxes are too low. And he should take a real salary instead of phony stock options, which he doesn’t even pay FICA taxes on.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:41 PM
The Associated Press, that bastion of liberal thought, presents it this way:
House Passes Tax Relief
By JIM ABRAMS – 2 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Confronting the Senate and White House, House Democrats for a second time passed tax relief for 21 million people, going after companies and hedge fund managers that shelter money offshore. The vote Wednesday was a near party-line 226-193.
The White House responded with a veto threat and the Senate’s top Republican said the House approach to fixing the alternative minimum tax was unacceptable.
“The Senate will not pass a short-term fix for some, if it includes a permanent massive tax hike for others,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said it was a clear choice when millions of families get tax relief while 5,000 to 10,000 wealthy people pay the tab. Republicans, she said, would “increase the national debt in order to give comfort to people who are evading their taxes by going offshore to the tune of billions of dollars.”
According to Vote Smart:
National Key Vote
Alternative Minimum Tax Adjustment Act
Bill Number: HR 4351
Issues: Budget, Spending and Taxes
Date: 12/12/2007
Sponsor: Rep. Rangel, Charles (D-NY)
Roll no. 1153
Bill Passed (House)
How members voted
(226 – 193)
Representative Timothy Walz voted YES.
The AMT was designed to help close tax loopholes for those who could afford slick tax attorneys to beat the system. After 20 years, the average income has increased and the limits in the AMT bill are now beginning to pinch the middle class.
Walz made the right stand on the right issue.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Bringing up Warren Buffet is very good for your argument. In fact, Warren Buffet is a great advocate for fair taxation.
NEW YORK, June 26 — Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.
Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. “I don’t have a tax shelter,” he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who “clean our offices” are taxed, to loud applause.
DESPITE the fact he doesn’t use tax shelters, he pays a lower rate than the other people in his office.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Thanks Fibby, you just pointed out that Walz is indeed in the pocket of Pelosi.
The AMT sets a minimum tax rate of either 26% or 28% (depending on the amount of the taxpayer’s “alternative minimum taxable income,” as adjusted) on some taxpayers so that they cannot use certain types of deductions to lower their tax. By contrast, the rate for a corporation is 20%. Affected taxpayers are those who have what are known as “tax preference items”. These include long-term capital gains, accelerated depreciation, certain medical expenses, percentage depletion, certain tax-exempt income, certain credits, personal exemptions, and the standard deduction. So it wasn’t set up to target people who had slick lawyers. Since when is the STANDARD DEDUCTION and PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS a loophole? The ATM just needs to go. They do NOT need to replace the ATM with something else that nails the middles class, which is exactly what the Demoncrats have just passed.
And if Buffet is such a good advocate for fair taxation, why is he taking stock options that don’t get taxed a a lower rate? Why isn’t he taking a regular salary instead then?
December 15th, 2007 at 2:15 PM
You nut job righties are just jealous of Buffet ’cause he’s a rich leftie…keep listening to all that right talk radio–it’s turning all of you righties into jerks. If you spent a 1/4 of your energy into doing something good for this nation instead of BEHAVING BADLY, maybe we could take you a bit more seriousley. Chris–go cover up your zits…FOX NOISE, Jason Lewis and Rush Limbaugh will teach you NOTHING…all smart Americans know that…
December 15th, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Chris-you are such an obvious Right Wing Tool. What is really SAD is that people like you put all your energy into being ass holes instead of trying to be a part of the greater good. Your party has people-hating jerks to idiolize…I hear private contractors are making a fortune over in Iraq…I suppose you are ok with that, too. The rightie bloggers here must have been awful little monsters growing up and now you are UGLY AMERICANS…eyes are on us from all over the world–get a clue and shape the hell up!!
December 15th, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Warren Buffet takes no stock options in pay. He has often spoken out against the “Alice-in-Wonderland” games that corporations play by not properly expensing stock options. He says they represent a “time bomb” for shareholders.
According to Business Week, December 15, 2007:
ANNUAL COMPENSATION*
Salary $100,000
Total Annual Compensation $100,000
STOCK OPTIONS*
There is no Stock Options data available.
TOTAL COMPENSATION*
Total Annual Cash $100,000
Total Short Term Compensation $100,000
Other Long Term Compensation $114,250
Total Calculated Compensation $214,250
*Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy.
Don’t let the facts get in your way.
December 15th, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Besides, Honeydog, if you are just going to plagarize the Wikipedia AMT entry and then misinterpret it, why not just post a link? How many times have I read here “Wikipedia is not a credible source!”
Concerned about personal exemptions under the AMT? Yes, while it’s true you don’t get the personal exemption of (2006 numbers) $3,400 per person, you DO get the AMT exemption. That’s $62,550 for joint filers.
The AMT was designed to catch those slipping by without paying their fair share. The only mistake was not indexing the rates and limits to inflation.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Truth,
You are correct. Blackwater employees and other private contractors make about $1,200 a day in Iraq. Our soldiers make about $1200 a week, make that $1,256 if you count their imminent danger pay.
It gotta suck for those Americans who once were considered wealthy to now be in the middle class because of inflation. I wonder why they didn’t benefit from this outstanding Bush economy?
Once again Bush will show his loyalty to the top 1%’ers of Americans at the expense of the rest of us.
Dan Bartlet, a former member of BushCo. said that if the Republican wanted to get their message out they would go to the right wing blogs, and not the media because they knew the sheeple would. “regurgitate” and believe anything they told them, word for word.
This blog proves that.
I have to admit that it sure is fun to play here.
December 15th, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Man I’ve been missing out of an interesting debate here.
Okay a few things.
One, the AMT was created in the 1960′s (as much as I dislike that jerk who was President between 1993 and 2001 we can’t blame him for that)
Two, the AMT was created to target just about 100 hundred wealthy tax payers. The way the system works because it hasn’t been adjusted for inflation or the lowering of tax rates is it will hit about twenty million people next year. Umm I don’t think that twenty million people should be hit by something that was targeted at a very few tax payers.
Three, Thor the solution that the Democrats in the Senate wanted to do was a tax increase. The Republicans blocked that. So if you want to argue than argue that Republicans were opposing a tax increase. If the Democrats had put a real spending cut package on the table the Republicans not only would’ve supported it they would’ve been eager to cut more spending.
Four, Kathy Walz did vote against Tax relief for the people subject to AMT no ifs ands or but. What Walz voted for was a bunch of tax increases. Keep in mind Kathy Walz voted for a bill that won’t be signed into law.
Five, HC DFL this is what the AMT is. A person fills out a tax form and takes the deductions that HC DFL is told they can claim. after filling out their form the IRS writes a letter saying that because you make too much money you can’t claim the deductions that your friend HC DFL can take so you have to pay more in taxes. Hence they are being forced to pay extra taxes instead of hiding behind loopholes like you think.
Six, truth we aren’t jealous of Warren Buffett. What has us angry at Warren is because he has more than enough money he thinks he needs instead of writing a check to the government and saying Truth’s money is his money the government should change the tax rate so truth should pay more plus oh Mr. Buffett who looks like a hero still keeps his money. That sounds silly doesn’t it. And because Warren sets up his income so most of it comes from investments instead of a salary he creates the impression he’s taxed less than his Secretary. Last time I looked he still writes a check much larger than his Secretary though he thinks he’s being noble in asking for higher taxes.
I look forward to responses and please tell me the size of the check you wrote to government to pay extra above the taxes you’re asked to pay since you think other people aren’t paying enough in taxes.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
s
December 15th, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Fibby, you are fibbing again. What Business week says about Stock Options for Buffett is: “There is no Stock Options data available.”
In other words, they aren’t saying if he is getting any or not. That doesn’t mean he isn’t getting any. You don’t get to be one of the richest men in American on annual salary of 214K.
ANd you accuse me of misinterpreting information? LOL!
The AMT screws middle income wage earners, pure and simple.
From: http://www.smartmoney.com/tax/filing/index.cfm?story=amt
“You should definitely run the numbers if your gross income is above $75,000 and you have write-offs for personal exemptions, taxes and home-equity loan interest.”
See, there is that personal exemptions again. And home interest that is normally deductable.
And then this from the same Smart Money page:
“In effect, you are simply adding back some tax deductions and income exclusions to your regular taxable income to arrive at your alternative minimum taxable income. Here is where the middle class gets soaked. First you have to add back your personal- and dependent-exemption deductions ($3,400 each in 2007, $3,300 each in 2006), then your standard deduction if you don’t itemize ($10,700 for joint filers in 2007 and $10,300 for joint filers in 2006; $5,350 for singles in 2007 and $5,150 for singles in 2006). You also lose your state, local and foreign income and property-tax write-offs, as well as your home-equity loan interest, if the loan proceeds are not used for home improvements.”
There go those exemptions again.
THere is this:
“Finally, you get to deduct the AMT exemption — $62,550 for 2006 joint filers; $42,500 for unmarried persons; $31,275 for those married filing separately. However, this exemption is reduced by 25 cents for each dollar of AMT taxable income above $150,000 for couples ($112,500 for singles and $75,000 for married filing separate status), and it’s not adjusted for inflation, which is one reason why more people owe the AMT every year.”
Either you are a really pathetic liar Fibby, or you are truly dense when it comes to AMT.
A primer on AMT for you: http://www.fairmark.com/amt/amt101.htm
But knowing you, you’ll lie about that too.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Yep, you really are dense Honeydog.
The Republicans are blocking middle class tax relief because they want to do away with the AMT. The AMT is so the rich CAN’T use loopholes to escape their fair share of taxes.
You really don’t understand the purpose of the AMT, do you?
Here it is, plain and simple. Some people figured out ways around the tax laws by using tax shelters and fancy accounting. Congress decided to make them figure their taxes TWO ways: the regular way, and the Alternative Minimum way. You pay the higher tax.
For most people, the AMT was a non-issue because either a) they didn’t earn that much or b) they weren’t using any fancy tricks.
Twenty years later, inflation has changed the story. The system needs a small adjustment. But Republicans want to scrap AMT so they vote against it.
Lie all you want, but America is onto your tricks now. You have turned a surplus into deficit with your funny accounting.
Walz did the right thing for middle class America.
December 15th, 2007 at 8:58 PM
Honeydog, if you have proof that Buffet is getting stock options, by all means, bring it forward.
All information I have indicates Berkshire Hathaway doesn’t give stock options, Buffet doesn’t get any stock options, and he doesn’t approve of the way they are used.
Like I said, don’t let the facts get in your way.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Walter;
I am floored, we agree on something. I don’t think that 20 million Americans should get hit with a tax either. A tax that could be and should be paid by those that owe it.
Is it fair that some wealthy Americans defer their compensation and then hide it in sheltered off-shore accounts to avoid paying taxes?
Is it fair that they use the services and protection of our government and don’t pay their fair share in taxes?
Closing this tax loophole would generate the revenue need to cover the AMT and not add to the deficit.
How come the Republicans didn’t fix the AMT when they were in control of Congress and the White House?
Could it be because of this,
the Bush budget includes the AMT revenues, which are projected to total $500 Billion through the year 2012.
I guess this how we make up the loss of revenue from Bush’s tax cuts to the 1%ers.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:37 AM
Fibby, I’m not the dense one. The AMT is nailing regular middle class people who are not doing anything fancy, rather just taking the standard deductions.
The fix that Demoncrats proposed for AMT includes a tax hike in the standard tax method for the very same middle class people they say they are trying to help.
So the question is Fibby, why do you keep trying to lie about that fact?
December 16th, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Scooter what middle class tax cut was being held up here? Scooter since when is income below $100,000 considered rich? Twenty million people don’t get hit for something that is aimed at the rich unless there is a problem (never adjusted for inflation and rates being lowered). The system needs a big adjustment. What causes the problem is that Democrats think they have to ask for money from the rich to collect for taxes that the government shouldn’t have been asking for to begin with.
And Scooter what turned a surplus into a deficit was that when George Bush took office we were hit by a recession (something which the Democrats denied was happening and they were mad he was trying to talk down the economy in 2000 even though they have had no problem doing it since the remarkable economic growth started in 2003)plus a huge economic hit created by a economic event called 9-11. The deficit has been decling to balance with the biggest obstacle being Congress (and I will blame Republicans here as well) for wanting to spend more money. At least Bush is now serious about trying to restrain spending growth.
Scooter I do believe Warren owns lots of shares in his company. That gets him stock dividends above the listed compenstation you use. One reason why Warren makes the claims he does is because when he does his tax return the dividends on that stock are taxed at a rate lower than his regular income.
And HCDFL I think you missed my point. You claimed that the AMT is for tax dodgers who like to use fancy loopholes. The 20 million people who are being hit by the AMT are using normal deductions which people like you can use being told that they make too much money when it’s less than a hundred thousand dollars.
And I think another area you’re missing is what should the rate on the income be. You seem to think that a rich person (though what is rich to you) should pay a lot more in taxes than they’re paying now. To me it’s unfair that a person shouldn’t have to fork over $350,000 in federal taxes, $6,900 in Social Security Taxes, $80,000 in taxes to the state of Minnesota just because he has income of a million dollars. And if you assume this comes from a business the other taxes the business payes such as payroll taxes for employees. Your idea of fairness is to increase those taxes I just listed!
And HCDFL since the government hasn’t collected a single cent of that future money just fix the rules and not worry about offsetting the revenues.
Something which the Republicans did and the reason why we have this item we’re talking about is that the House Democrats including Walz says no we can’t do that. Walz isn’t not being fair!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
One reason why people do stunts to hide their income or shelter it is because the rates are too high. Muncipal bonds for example are attractive not because of their interest rate which is lower than other bonds, but because their after tax structure creates higher income than some other bonds.
As for the Republicans not fixing the AMT when they were in control of Congress they were doing more important fixes at the time to lowering rates and trying to increase investment. Keep in mind Congress has insane scoring rules on tax cuts. To repeal the estate tax something which the government collects maybe $60 billion a year Congress is told it costs more than $100 billion (the numbers might not be the right ones but I have seen this reported). And the tax cut the scoring of the tax cut underestimated the amount of income that was going to come into the treasury. Something by $250 billion plus.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Honeydog;
How many of your middle class friends defer their compensation to off shore accounts to avoid paying taxes?
The Democratic House bill provides tax relief for 23 million Americans, and it does not add to the deficit, but it does require about 10,000 Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.
If a I make $75,000 a year and AMT allows a deduction of $ $62,550.
I pay taxes on $12,450@26% = $3227 per year or about 4.3% of my income. State taxes aside, after your “government services premium”(taxes) you still have $71,773.
The way I see it, for $3227 a year I am provided with: 1) national defense, 2) education 3) police protection, 4) fire protection, 5) disaster relief 6) national parks 7)the highways and byways.
This is but a short list of what your tax dollars provide for you.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:43 PM
None of my friends send their money to off shore accounts.
THe Demoncratic house bill doesn’t provide tax relief at all, it just shifts how they get those tax dollars. Bottom line, it still comes out of my pocket. And more and more of it, thanks to the Demoncrats, is being taken away from me to fund stupid things.
Also, read that link I provided that shows how AMT actually works. It isn’t like you outlined at all.
Now HCDFL, education, police, and fire protection are all funded by city taxes and property taxes, not by the federal taxes. So pull your head out your butt and actually tell the truth.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Yep, taxes fund stupid things like bridges and armies.
Typical Republican thinking.
December 16th, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Scooter:
The problem is that money paid in terms of gasoline taxes which should pay for roads is diverted to mass transit projects that don’t use as many people as roads.
HCDFL:
The AMT provides a lot more than $3,000. To get that $500 million figure you used and if 20 million people are affected the average AMT tax payer is paying an extra $25,000 a year. Is that fair.
Highways are in theory paid by the gasoline tax(fed and state by the way) (not the income tax). And the money isn’t put into road construction like it should. Police and fire last time I looked are suppose to local functions. Disaster relief? Um part of our problme now a days is people believe that the government and the insurance companies (assuming they even bothered to get insurance) should pay for everything. An interesting thing about disaster relief two bridges were destroyed by hurrican Katrina. One was a railroad bridge. The other was a normal highway bridge. The railroad bridge has already been rebuilt because they’re losing money if they didn’t do it. Maybe we could put that railroad company in charge of the other bridge and the 35W bridge.
The major problem with your list. You don’t understand what is local and what is federal (a lot of liberal democrats don’t) and there are a lot of things which shouldn’t have a single cent spent on which is getting lots of money.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
December 16th, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Fibby you twit, I didn’t say bridges or armies were stupid. And the fact that you say that’s what I meant is yet another example of your lies and the lies of all Demoncrats like you.
What is stupid is things like the bike trails in the middle of nowhere, the Woodstock Museum, etc.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Scooter Fibby,
How did Warren Buffet become the second richest person in the WORLD if he didn’t take stock options as part of his compensation for Berkshire Hathaway, a publicly traded company?
Also, if Warren Buffet thinks he isn’t taxed enough, he should write a check to the federal government for $4 billion, about 10% of his net worth. He won’t miss it.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Walter,
Apparently you and Honeydog don’t know the difference either, because over $283 billion/year is given to the states/local governments in the form of grants(they don’t pay it back) from the federal government.
Does the federal government provides national security, yes(Army,Navy,Air Force, Marines, National Guard) .
Does the federal government provide education funding to states, yes (K12/scholarships/Pell grants).
Does the federal government provide funding for state and local police and fire departments, yes(Homeland Security).
Does the federal government provide funding for disaster relief, yes (FEMA and the southeastern Minnesota floods).
Does the federal government provide highway and bridge funding,yes ($195 million for the I-35 bridge).
Does the AMT need to be fixed, yes( indexed for inflation).
Don’t be fooled, Bush and the Republicans didn’t fix the AMT when they had a chance because they made plans to spend that revenue, to use it to off set the the loss of revenue from the tax cuts to the 1%ers.
We can’t deficit spend on everything.
Your AMT numbers would be correct if all 20 million had an income of $75,000/year, but you know that is not the case.
Both of you addressed federal funds being spent on “stupid” things, did you know that over $477,605,000,000 has been spent on Bush’s folly in the middle east, that comes to about $275 million/day. Minnesota has lost over $11 billion in federal funds since April of 2003. This money would give 3,598,098 Minnesota children health care, or place 252,000 more police and fire fighters on Minnesota’s streets or provided an extra 130,500 port container inspectors. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% have cost Minnesota’s state/local governments $876 million in lost revenues.
You guys missed the the $320 million “bridge to nowhere”, but than that was a Republican earmark.
Just because you don’t agree with the truth, it doesn’t mean that it’s a lie.
Educate yourselves, don’t believe all the lies foxnoise and rush tell you.
Minnesotans are better than that.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:30 PM
HCDFL,
Minnesotans are better than falling into the trap that the government is there to take your money and spend it to take care of you. You mention the war on terrorism and how much it costs our government. Our budget is $3 trillion. The war is less than 5% of our budget. Where is the other 95% of the budget going?
You mentioned the tax cuts as well. It’s not your money. It’s not the government’s money. If you’re a socialist, then go to a socialist country to live. America is not a socialist country and the people are in the best position to spend and invest their money — not the government.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:11 AM
HCDFL, I’m sorry, but a measlely little 9$ or less is hardly a lot of federal spending on k-12 schools. By the way, schools spend a whole ton of money on things they don’t need and should get more money until they are more fiscally responsible. Instead of reducing class sizes and making sure the kids have text books, the schools are spending money on things like astro turf on football fields, coffee shops in the high schools, etc. I have to laugh at the Robinsdale schools. You know why they needed more money? Because their administration played around with the health insurance and pissed off the major insurers because they kept switching carriers every year. Now none of them will take on the district as a client. So now Robinsdale has to self insure, which is much more expensive. Teachers who have family coverage now have to go on welfare just to keep the insurance. But the administration doesn’t care, they have full coverage paid for by the district.
Now Pell grants aren’t given to states, they are given to individual students.
Now HCDFL, how about our transportation dollars funding Oberstar’s hundreds of miles of bike trails that nobody uses? Or these other projects from our transporation dollars:
•$4 million marked for graffiti elimination in Queens and Brooklyn, New York
• $250,000 marked for a website for the Blue Ridge Travel Association in Virginia
• $2 million for a high-speed catamaran ferry in Massachusetts
• $1 million for a parking lot in San Diego
• $3.5 million for horse trails in Virginia
• $5 million for a parking garage in downtown Bozeman, Montana
The Demoncrats tried to add 23 billion worth of pork projects into the budget over the summer, which would cost every tax payer $240 a year. Now I don’t know how many families can afford to part with an additional $480 (assuming both husband and wife work) a year.
ANd I will admit that the Bridge to Nowhere was stupid, but guess what, the Democrats are still funding that one even if it was started by a Republican. And the Demoncrats have added to it with the bike trails, the Woodstock Museum, Hillary’s Knitting Mill, etc.
Bush’s tax cuts benefited everybody who actually paid taxes. Even JFK, you remember him don’t you, used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. But then, today’s democrats are socialists instead of what a democrat like JFK was like.
I suggest HCDFL, that you are the one who needs to learn the truth instead being conned by the Demoncrats. The AMT doesn’t work as you and Fibby have alleged. And I’ve even provided a link to prove it.
December 17th, 2007 at 4:29 PM
This debate was healthy for both sides, but its obvious that we are not going to agree. The freedom to debate,research and present our points is what make America such a great nation.
Chris;
Thanks for the suggestion, but I going to stay where I am. Do you really believe you could afford to pay the individual costs for roads,education, military,etc.
Honeydog;
should we start the debate on the high cost of health insurance to school districts and how that cost effects a child’s education?
December 17th, 2007 at 4:47 PM
HCDFL, the cost of health insurance will be greater if it’s all government funded.
I’ve yet to see you offer up anything but the Demoncrat talking lies, er points. You have yet to substantiate anything with more than your own vacuous words.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:17 PM
HC DFL:
One of the problems we have with the federal budget is that there were powers which the federal government wasn’t meant to have was assume by the federal government.
A good example, is that even though every state in theory gets to determine their speed limits or drinking laws the federal government forced every state to adopt it by taking away money. So right there is a problem you don’t want to acknowledge.
Or how about the way the federal government spends the money. The Federal Government takes away from me thousands of dollars every year so they say I can have a better retirement. If I can just put that money into a simple interest bearing account I could be a millionarie by the time I retire. And if I should accidentally die or die prematurely my family gets the money. Under the current system the government gets the money. That isn’t fair. Of course you side on the wasteful social security program.
The fact that you think government spends the money better than individuals or businesses is silly. Remember those two bridges in New Orleans.
And when the government was giving a free $2,000 to victims of hurrican Katrina all that stupid spending including drugs.
Oh I forgot you consider that to be brilliant spending.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
December 18th, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Walter and company;
I was going explain AMT one more time but what is the point. You worship the almighty $$$$. You guys are right lets not pay taxes, lets send the more of our young people to fight in the middle east, let our infrastructure fall apart, our schools decline, lets pay for our own police and fire protection, give up a for sure in social security for a maybe depending on how high/low the interest rates go. End the government and let privatize everything.
With no minimum wage, how long before your wages drop?
With no money for roads or snow removal how long will it take you to get to work?
With no public education how much will it cost to send your children to school?
With no money for workplace safety how long till your hurt on the job?
With no money for wars, how long till the terrorists get us.
With no money for the CDC how long till the next big flu bug hits or some other pandemic illnesses.
With no money for levees and dams how many will be homeless from flooding.
With no money to inspect our food how long will it be safe to eat?
If you think your money is better off in the hands of those who currently don’t pay their fair share what makes you so sure they will pay you your fair share.
Wise up, the robber barons will take everything you have, remember, those with all the gold make all the rules. I have more faith in America and its government, then I do in CEO’s and hedge fund managers.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:06 AM
You wise up! All you’ve done is flap your jaw. I provided a link to prove I was right on AMT.
The government doesn’t spend their money wisely. Until they do, they don’t get more.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:27 AM
Why didn’t the Republicans fix or end the AMT when they had control?
The Bush administration once again was out to screw the middle class, they planned to use the AMT revenues to offset the 1%ers tax cuts and then blame the Democrats for raising taxes.
And you fell for it.
Keep up the good work, Sheeple
December 19th, 2007 at 10:31 AM
HCDFL:
first of all sorry for not getting to everything you griped about here. I’m sure you will let me know what I missed. Fixing the AMT was a secondary issue to fixing the tax code to help the economy and making it more fair (the Bush tax cuts). It should be simple to fix since the government should it’s not suppose to be their money and abolish it. the problem is the Democrats and a few Republicans want the income that somebody projected was coming in to spend. And spending is what we have really been arguing about.
There are things that government should do. The problem is there are a lot of things that government does that they shouldn’t do or don’t do well. Social Security for example is a program where there might be a government role, but they have messed it up big.
the minimum wage isn’t government spending. by the way why did the Democrats wimp at $7. Why not $20. Why not $100. There are countless studies that show when you raise the minimum wage the people you hurt the most are people with low job skills who need to get into the work force to get better skills to get higher paying jobs (black teenagers take the brunt of the hit – odd I thought it was the Republicans who were the racists who didn’t love blacks)
I have no objection for levies being built just keep those environmental groups which in the name of saving the environment filed a law suit which stopped the building of a levy in New Orleans that could’ve withstood the damage of hurricane Katrina.
We already pay taxes for roads in the form of car tabs, gasoline taxes, etc. Lets spend them on roads instead of worthless mass transit projects (aka light rail)
You want to save money on education. Give each parent a $10,000 voucher (see I’m willing to spend tax dollars for education) for their child and you’ll see dramatic improvement in education because most parents will finally be able to get their kids to real schools (private schools) or the public schools to survive will get their acts together. When you have miniority parents fleeing the Minneapolis Schools you know there is a problem!
and you save you want a fair tax. Okay a person makes a million dollars. What is his fair share that should go away on taxes?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
December 19th, 2007 at 10:31 AM
HCDFL,
If our taxes only went to roads, the military and education, I would have a party to celebrate tomorrow. Because those things only amount to about $1 trillion out of the $3 trillion budget. The problem we have is that people like you want to be generous with other people’s money and put up a whole ton of programs to take care of people who are able to take care of themselves. That’s not to say that there isn’t a role for government to assist people who can’t make it – but there is no reason the government should be paying for health care for people making $80,000 a year. What you’re advocating is socialism plain and simple.