Do you support holding up an extension of unemployment benefits, in order to extend tax cuts for those making more than $250000?
By Anonymous - 12/2/10 - 11:29 am
No
82% (450 votes)
Yes
18% (101 votes)
Total votes: 551
Comments
Relevance?
What does this have to do with Boston?
60,000 Massachusetts
60,000 Massachusetts residents are unemployed and many of them live in greater Boston.
One of their two Senators is holding unemployment insurance extension as hostage in order to extend tax cuts to the wealthy. Unemployment insurance extension costs about $50 Billion. It is the single most effective economic stimulus according to a recent study by the CBO. Plus it allows the unemployed to buy food and pay their rents so they don't end up on the street. The extension of the Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $250,000 will cost $600-850 Billion and is not paid for-that is to say, it is money we would borrow from China, hand it to the rich, and owe to china, with interest.
If my memory serves me correctly, there was quite a bit of discussion about runaway Federal spending that may have in fact led to electoral victories by Tea Party Republicans in the last election. Most of that spending happened between 2000 and 2008 but no matter.
It's hard to argue fiscal conservatism and hand out $100,000 checks to wealthy Americans. 10 years of that is another $1,000,000 each. Who do you think should be help to pay down the debt?
I don;t mind paying taxes to help unemployed people buy food and pay their rent. I do mind paying taxes to give it to people who don;t need the extra cash, on average $10,000 a year or $1,000,000 over ten, all of it borrowed with you and me on the hook for it.
There's a link to blue mass
There's a link to blue mass group somewhere on this site. Use it and you can spout the latest and greatest MoveOn.org press release with abandon.
Your faux poll just makes you look childish and I believe it has little relavence to this website.
What makes the poll faux?
.
silly survey of unrelated topics
I'm going to make one of these too:
Do you prefer that your grandmother be alive and happy, or that she die a terrible death because America doesn't have socialized healthcare?
unrelated topics? ask your senator why he tied them together
see here
Poorly worded poll
I'm not too crazy about the wording of the poll question. It's like a poll on abortion asking "Do you believe women should be allowed to kill their babies?".
This isn't an either/or scenario. The budget is made up of thousands (millions?) of components, and you decided to pick two of them. I couldn't vote based on that.
The question is the Republicans plan, so its a valid question
The poll question is a reflection of what the Republicans have stated. They have said no legislation can proceed without an extension of the tax cuts for those making $250,000 and up, including the filibustering by them recently on this issue. So the pollster is simply asking if you agree with the Republican platform.
"This isn't an either/or scenario." You'd think so
Tis the season..
if you work on Wall Street or are a Defense contractor. 2 Million people in this country will not be the beneficiary of government largess this Yuletide season. Their Christmas cards will be from the Hallmark "Sorry about your eviction/foreclosure" Collection
Let ALL the tax cuts expire
Let all the tax cuts expire. The BusHITLER tax cuts only benefited the rich, remember? They only benefited the top 2% of Americans? That's what I've been hearing for the last 10 years. Just let them all expire and those rich bastards will feel the sweet pain they deserve. The other 98% of us won't feel a thing in our paychecks, unless I've been misinformed.
Not quite just the top
Not quite just the top 2%..
and unemployment benefits are taxable.
Looks like the least wealthy will still get a bump from 10% to 15%.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/11/30/what-happens-if-the-bust-tax-cuts-expire
A 50% increase, then
That's what the poor would face if all the cuts expire. The highest earners would face an 8.3% increase, limited to income in excess of $250,000. It is not a significant increase at the high end, but the possible increase to low wage earners could be catastrophic.
BUT BUT BUT... BOOOSH!
The poor would face a 50% tax increase if the Bush cuts expire, but the rich would only face an 8.3% increase? Are you saying that the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the poor? Because that's false; everyone knows that the Bush tax cuts were only for the richest 1% of American capitalist pigs. You are clearly an ignorant teabagger and thus a racist.
Erm, no
The key point is that disposable income matters to the poor much more than it does to the wealthy, even though they don't have much of it. Yes, of course tax cuts directly benefit anybody who receives them. And all things being equal, I'd love to see taxes cut for everybody. But we have a government that needs funding, services that need to be paid for, and an economy that needs a kick start. That 8.3% for income over $250,000 won't do much to change the lifestyle of somebody in that bracket. They are already buying what they want or need. Maybe it will mean a different car, but it won't be the reason for having a car. Or they will just put more into savings. As I covered in another post, they are not going to invest it in a way that stimulates the economy. Contrast that with somebody at the 10% bracket, who already doesn't make enough to cover necessary spending.
I'm kind of indifferent to the question but...
A friend of mine owns a small business. He nets about $750,000 a year but spends about $350,000 on operating expenses and another $300,000 or so on his employees payroll (He has about 10 workers).
Although he 'only' takes in $100K a year, in the eyes of the government he makes $750K. The tax cuts help him because he can use that money to pay for more employees, and basically make his business a better one.
If he loses that tax break, he may have to let go a worker or two, or at least change his business operation around so that he can pay his mortgage and keep making the 100K that he makes.
I mean, I don't feel bad for the guy as he is going ok in life, but the tax break isn't really making him that much richer, it just helps him operate his business better. Thats the story I got anyway.
EDIT: I don't really know how much he makes. I suspect it is more than 100K but probably less than 175K
Your friend will be among the first up against the wall, comrade
Sounds like he's rich to me. The government shouldn't give him a big fat check, which is all a tax cut is - the government giving rich people a big chunk of of its money. At least it is according to Anonymous:
What can Brown do for you?
Senator Brown Urges an Explosion of Deficit Spending
Although he 'only' takes in
I don't think he gets taxed on income he has to spend on valid business expenses, like payroll, rent, etc.
No he doesn't get taxed on it and he still wouldn't
but he still has to pay the actual expense. I mean, he gets a lot of deductions for the $750K, but he would get less if the tax break gets recinded I think.
(and I should have said he grossed 750K, not netted it)
Apart from the debate over
Apart from the debate over tax rates, there is a Deficit Commission that made recommendations about tax deductions on things like mortgage interest but that issue is not this issue and they are far from passing anything into law. The tax debate does not involve a change in valid business deductions.
If your friend earns <250,000 a year, his tax bill would not be affected by whether the tax cuts for income > $250,000 is renewed or lapses.
If it lapses, folks earning > $250,000 will pay an additional 3% on the income > $250,000 as they did before Bush passed the tax cuts, spent the federal surplus and spent massive amounts of money borrowed from foreign countries. None of Bush's big bills or wars were paid-for, they were all finance with debt.
only on income $250,000+
That is, if he earns $250,001 he will pay the lower tax rate on all but $1 of his income.
Correct, taxes are paid on
Correct, taxes are paid on net income. He's already better off on Obama's plans, and most likely would be better served by the tax plan's offered up by the Dem's.
Problem is, all the information and emotional chest pumping probably has his opinion made up that the evil libruls will cause him more harm then good.
Taxes = Evil, Everyone's going to be a millionaire some day.
Are you sure?
I always thought that gross income was taxable income minus tax deductions.
It wouldn't affect him,
It wouldn't affect him, assuming he nets, as you say, $100-175K. It is a marginal tax rate, and only applies to the net above $250K. Income below that is taxed at the same rates everyone pays.
I think a big problem is that people just don't understand how it works, i.e., they assume the higher rate applies to the entire income, which it does not.
If all the cuts expire (which they might), everyone will be paying more, though the difference for lower-income people will not be as large.
thanks OPB, really good explanantion
Here's a chart that shows the tax cuts under the two plans
I worked with a guy
Who insisted he didn't want a raise because it would put him up to the next tax bracket and then he would end up paying more taxes and bring home less money as a result.
No, really.
I tried, but I never could quite convince him that isn't the way it works. Dumbest son of a bitch I ever met.
Sounds like the girl that used to live downstairs
Former neighbor went to the assessor because she felt her condo was worth more than the assessment. He happily obliged.
Sheesh!
The guy's slitting his own throat!
Pay the actual expense of what?
Are you telling me he pays taxes on his gross income and is not able to deduct the 650k in business expenses?
I'm not saying he doesn't have deductions.
Only that he brings in 750K total and gets taxed on that.
You are misinformed. I grew
You are misinformed. I grew up in a small family business, and am myself a small businessman - and believe me, labor costs and operating expenses are deductable. If your friend grosses $750K and has $650K in labor and operating expenses (cost of goods, capital expenses, rent, insurance, etc) then he will only have $100K of taxable income and may actually fare better under the Dem plan than the existing Bush one.
Ref this IRS article on Business Expenses.
Yeah, he's doing his taxes wrong
When I fill out my Schedule C, I put that I take in, say, $10,000 from insurance company reimbursements and checks from private pay folks. Then I deduct all my business expenses, like office supplies, mileage, continuing ed classes, supplies I use in sessions, travel to conferences, license renewal, malpractice insurance, legal fees, bank fees, utility bills, (+ money paid to employees if I were to have any). Then any money left over is considered income to me, and I report the final figure, $5000 or so, on the 1040 as self-employment income.
Similarly, let's say I had a business with no overhead (or I chose not to deduct overhead). Say I'm buying blimps for $10,000 each, autographing them, and selling them for $11,000 each. If I buy/sell 5 of them during the year, my cash inflows are $55,000, my cost of inventory is $50,000, so my income for the year is $5000. Not $55,000. All of this gets reported on Schedule C to show that I did it right, but only the $5000 gets carried over to the 1040 as self-employment income.
Well he doesn't do his own taxes..
and from what I just heard, it has to do with itimized deductions after the AJI over 175K which would effect him.
Then he's doing his taxes wrong
Itemized deductions are taken out of one's personal income. So he'd start with the income that he actually takes home from his business, then he'd itemize things like his family's medical bills and his mortgage interest.
If he's quoting the $175K as being in any way related to his income, he's either doing his taxes really really wrongly, or he actually does have that sort of income and is trying to find loopholes, elicit sympathy, etc.
A small business is no different from working from an employer in most ways. If I work for a hospital and they take in millions of dollars per year and pay me $40K, I pay taxes on the $40K. The millions have nothing to do with my income, because they're in the hospital's budget, not in my wallet. Same with a small business, except that I can't say I took in $175K and paid myself $40K and that's that; I have to account for having spent the other $135K on business expenses. Because if I didn't, then it is in fact income, since I still have it kicking around. Dig?
Well not exactly
First off, he brings in 750K in cash. Then he has to figure out how much he spends on all this other stuff. Payroll is the easiest to figure out and there are already federal forms for that. Everything else changes from year to year, and he has to justify what he uses for his business and how much he can actually write off.
Bottom line is that he has to find out his gross profit first, and then he has to find out all of his deductable business expenses. He also has to use an accrual accounting method for his business, which harder to do for a small business and gives a lot of leeway for errors for tax purpuses.
Do you agree that Profit = gross income - expense
...whether cash basis or accrual accounting?
You have a way of taking a topic about prioritizing unemployment benefits and Bush tax cuts on income greater than $250000 ... and turning it into a question about the tax liability of your friend's business - whose gross income exceeds his net income (profit) due to valid business expenses.
Your hijacking of the thread to talk about this question of interest to you is entirely reasonable - its related and you have an interest but your inability to grasp the concepts that relate to tax liability, concepts that many people have tried to explain to you, that is not reasonable, not at all.
Ok then his tax man is wrong and he is wrong.
I didn't care too much to get into it with him. All I know is that he makes a lot of money and pays someone a lot of money to do his taxes for him. He isn't really a republican, and I assume his taxman isn't either. But his taxman is telling him that a change in the current tax structure may change the way he has to do some things. He runs a very successful business and I'm willing to bet his taxman does too.
I'll get his W-2 forms and post them on here for everyone to see when I get them.
Which brings us back to the original point
Which is that if his income (not his business's cash inflows) is over $250K, then he's doing quite all right, so then yes, I would say that someone who makes more than five times as much as my family needs to pay a bigger proportion toward taxes than my family does.
Ding, Ding! And to reiterate,
Ding, Ding!
And to reiterate, he's paying more on the additional income he makes over Eeka. That's why it's fair, and why it makes sense.
This nonsense answer that someone would just not want to make a ton of money because they'll get taxed on that additional income is pure BS.
Where in the history of man has that ever happened?
Never.
loopholes.
I think that is the key word I am trying to find here. Basically it will be harder now to find these "loopholes" so he can pay less taxes and keep more money.
But what he does with that extra money is what it comes down to and what makes this whole issue a tough one.
For every person that collects unemployment but sits on his couch all day, there is another person who took 3 jobs just so he could pay his mortgage and feed his family.
Just like there will be the person making over 250K that will now not have extra cash to invest in other business ventures that might create jobs, while the other person making over 250K simply has to buy three 75K luxury cars next year instead of five 75K luxury cars.
The person making over $250K
would have to make a lot more than $250k for the tax increase to be any meaningful amount of money. Suppose she makes $350k, that translates to an extra $3,000 of tax liability, roughly 0.85% of her income. Her effective rate is only marginally higher than the rate for somebody making $100,000. The only people who will see a significant increase are people making millions of dollars. They can afford it.
Basically it will be harder
The only issue being debated is tax rates not exemptions or tax credits just rates - so will be harder now to find these "loopholes"?
I think so.
Bush's tax plan wasn't just about a tax cut for those making over 250K. There were other tax breaks as well. I believe the child tax credit was cut in half, married couples filing jointly are effected, and capital gains taxes that effect a lot of people are effected too.
It sounds like Obama's plan is just for the 250K limit to expire (and not the others).
I believe that is what is being discussed in Congress right now though as to where to strike that balance.
I see. It's to reconcile what
I see. It's hard to reconcile what he's telling you with you're being told here.
our problem here is two-fold
A. Many in Greater Boston hate rich people more than they love their country and
B. Most of those same people don't know the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. (Sigh.....)
lol,wut?
lol,wut?
Short answer: sure
Government spending is the problem. We need to cut it. Taxing the rich means they will invest less in our economy, further hurting those down the line that depend on the jobs they offer.
We aren't extending tax cuts, we are deciding whether to raise taxes on all Americans, regardless of the hyperbole that "only certain ones" will be affected.
In terms of economic policy, Bush and Obama are the same - they have bloated government to unseen levels and have no way of paying for it. "Taxing the rich" isn't the answer, because they are either really good at getting around the attempts, or you are going to chase away the most productive members of the economy and keep them from investing in the jobs that the poor depend on.
No amount of nice sounding platitudes, rhetoric, or straight up propaganda about helping the poor is going to change that. Additionally, regarding "poor grandma" - actually, old people are far and away the richest demographic in the country. They should be paying more for the services they consume, not building an ever-increasing ponzi scheme upon the young that you can see collapsing all around Europe.
Regarding welfare, I'd probably even support removing the right to vote to those dependent upon it. If you're living off the support of others, you should be limited in your attempts to squeeze more juice from the fruit.
I'm sick of politicians promising things (and voters responding to those promises that only work to reinforce the power that the political elite desier) that can't responsibly be paid for, as you will see as the new healthcare legislation pushes the ridiculous cost of care in our country ever higher, or as child healthcare plans are dropped, or employee healthcare is incentivized to push the riskiest patients into the worst payment pool that we'll all pay more and more of.
Yes, I'm an angry 25 year old, newly out of college with plenty of my own debt, staring into the morass that is our fiscal future in light of generational contemporaries being completely ignorant of the nature of ineffective bureaucracies that continually suck more and more from the future generations.
These "evil rich" you like to complain about, they already pay for the vast majority of government services in the country while consuming the least. What moral justification do you have for robbing Peter even more to pay Paul? You don't, if everyone is equal under the law.
Republicans are evil, as are your cherished New England Democrats. They both absolutely suck and if you can't see that you are a fool. Why not get back to covering Boston, instead of publishing these ridiculously partisan wastes of RSS? Sorry for the rant, but these get really old.
4 some1 who found no Boston involved, you had a lot to say
Adam did not publish the poll, I did. I am a reader.
The poll has to do with a formulation Scott Brown made. I don't think asking people if they agree with Scott Brown's formulation is partisan. The discussion that followed is partisan naturally. You chose to participate. I'm glad.
The question does not ask about whether the very rich should get an extension of the Bush tax cuts, it asks if unemployment benefits should be held hostage.
Taxing the rich means they
Newsflash, Trick Down Theory has had 30 years to work and has failed miserable for everyone besides those with wealth.
Just look record profits being brought in this minute, record bonuses being given out; yet corporations are holding on to their cash and refusing to hire. There's more money in squeezing the last bit of productively out of their workers, and cost cutting; because they can.
It's led to a concentration of power and money in a small handful of mega conglomerates.
That's bad for Americans, that's bad for the economy, and it's always been bad for capitalism.
Our economy has always been best when policy and practices favored small businesses and entrepreneurship. Everything we've done under Trickle down has been done to stem that and tilt the favor back to big business, at everyone's determent.
Wit taxes at historic lows across the board, it's time for us to get real and realize that it isn't the answer to our problems, nor the boogieman we've been told about.
No need for new widget factories
This might be a useful analysis if present conditions matched the theory. At the moment, our productive capacity (ie ability to build widgets) exceeds demand for said capacity. Low economic growth is a result of low demand for widgets, not the inability to produce more widgets. In the former (and current) situation, we want to help people to buy more widgets. Lowering marginal rates for high earners won't make that happen because there is no reason to invest in new widget factories.
Widget industry is moribund
Not to mention the fact that the "jobs they offer" just aren't coming. "If only the rich had more money, then they could give more spare change to homeless vets blocking the sidewalk in front of their favorite restaurants." The widget factory analysis also leaves out the fact that these widgets are now being made overseas for pennies, increasing the bottom line for the widget companies. When they made the switch from unionized American widget makers to 3rd world sweatshop widget makers and the money rolled in, did they invest that dough in jobs here in the U.S.? Shit no, hiring Americans is too damn expensive that's why they went over seas, remember. That money went straight into their pockets and maybe they blew it in the casino (the one in Manhattan).
But what about all those information economy jobs or biotech or whatever...well switching from widgets to biotech is not an easy task. And given our decaying educational infrastructure I'm not so sure the entire US economy is going to go high end. There are greater economic problems here and it's far more complex than "tax the rich, feed the poor."
But RESTORING the tax rates to what they were prior to Bush's time-constrained reduction (it had a sunset date, therefore this isn't "raising taxes" it's "restoring" them to where they were) even across the board (but I'd prefer it on those netting above 250K or whatever), is far better.
Another thing I keep seeing
Another thing I keep seeing is Unemployment benefits misinformation.
Most people/commentators seem to think that funding is actually for extending the 99 weeks a person can claim. Many news story are causing this misinformation with loose reporting that implies this effects those people.
The fact is that 99 weeks is the limit, and those who hit it are done.
The program's length is set in law, but the funding needs to be appropriated when the funding legislation runs out. In other words, someone on their 27th week of looking for work, if funding isn't passed, get's cut off.
Either way you slice it, It's bad for the state, and bad for the nation when someone given a lifeline in a deep recession suddenly can't pays his mortgage, feed his children, or pay his bills. It's going to cut off a money into many local economies, where you'll then get less demand and even more dire economic conditions.
Even Brown with the Grandstanding on deficits seems that. Still, It's going to be hard to get the others in his party to see that.
Republicans are irresponsible
Republicans are irresponsible selfish pigs. There's no use reasoning or bargaining with them. They are only interested in money grubbing. The more you point out how they are borrowing money from China to spend on useless wars and giveaways to the rich, the more they come up with lies and bullshit to try and change the topic.
If the democrats and independents figure out how to do this without republicans, then it will happen. Otherwise, shit hits the fan.
I Am NOT A Republican
Nevertheless, since nobody else has jumped on this, I will. I need the exercise.
Do you truly believe that every person who labels him or herself "Republican" has no moral value whatsoever? That those people cannot reason? That they will never compromise, no matter what the benefit may be to them? That's as much of a position devoid of logic as saying that all Democrats are welfare-statists interested in importing as many illegal immigrants as possible so that they can inflate the need for government to grow, thus ensuring their continued electoral success. It's a knee-jerk spouting of venom, never taking into account that we're discussing actual human beings with actual families and actual human feelings, even if they are elected officials, and it is not in any way helpful in a real sense.
Are there some miserably evil folk in government? Are there folks in office who care only about themselves? Surely. But painting every member of any political party as inhuman and stupid does a disservice to whatever cause you favor, be it liberal or conservative. You can't expect others to listen to your reasoned arguments unless you begin by granting that they, too, have the ability to reason.
The state of political discourse in this country is appalling. It has devolved to depths previously unplumbed. It feeds on sound-bites and vicious snarkiness, and pits supposed have-nots against supposed uber-rich. And you know who benefits from this divisiveness? The very people - on all sides - who are the most intransigent and at whom the ignorant anger is aimed.
OK, someone else can have the soapbox now. I'm done bloviating (at least for the time being.)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Not Bloviating at all.
Thought that was pitch perfect.
+ 1
.
How I saw it described somewhere else
A Social Science professor's website that I was recently reading summed up perfectly what you're sorta describing. He didn't expound on Republicans nor Democrats when talking of the groups that are currently rotting our country from the inside out while drumming up support for their efforts to continue the rotting. He called them:
The Selfish Class.
Leave it to Suldog to say what I always wanted to say
But Suldog said it better than I ever could have, so I'll just say "What he said".
Keep bloviating.
Yes?
Do you truly believe that every person who labels him or herself "Republican" has no moral value whatsoever?
Maybe not none whatsoever, but I don't have a lot of faith in the moral compass of a person who can look at the two major parties (both of which are effed up IMO, just so we're clear), see that one of them is clearly at least somewhat more in favor of civil rights, yet side with the other one.
(And yes, I get your point that character attacks and overgeneralization aren't productive or necessary, but I'm just saying that, yes, I do judge people based on whether they vote for or against me having the same basic daily civil rights as they do. Not the entire person, no, but just pointing out that some of us have a different perspective when our civil rights aren't guaranteed like some of yours are.)
Bloviate away!
distinctions
Making a distinction between the machinations of the political class, like Boehner and McConnell, and stand-up Republican party members like my dad, is a distinction that allows me to be appropriately critical of the political class and not say the same about my dad, his friends or conservative people who post on UniversalHub.
The trouble is, chicken, that while it's true that the
Republicans at large are irresponsible and selfish, it's also true that the Democrats at large have enabled the Republicans by going in lock-step with them in pretty much everything, including our illegal, unnecessary and wrongheaded wars that we've been fighting abroad.
Gross generalization
Oh please, that is such a gross generalization that if someone made the same kind of statement about gays/blacks/Latinos/Jews/etc., you and others would be ripping them a new asshole.
FWIW, this independent is in favor of extending unemployment benefits.
Yes and no
Political party affiliation refers solely to a person's values in terms of what the government should do. People choose to affiliate with the party, and all the party does is have opinions on government.
It would be a more fair comparison to ask if people would rip someone a new one for saying that the KKK or the Family Research Council is selfish.
Sorry
Sorry, somehow this got double posted......
Here's a visible representation of the data...
..That anyone concerned about the deficit needs to sit and study hard.
If you want any credibility on being able to claim you want deficit reduction, you'll want the Bush Tax Cuts (95% of which favor >250K and > 1% of our population) to expire. It's the biggest drag on our economy, and the biggest problem going forward if we allow it. It's paid for entirely by borrowed money from China, kicking the bucket down the road.
I'm all for cutting waste, and tightening the belt on services; but the deficit hawks are jokes and their lackeys are peons.
"Earmarks" make up less then 10% of the budget. Many earmarks aren't even earmarks as some people would think. Cutting waste and slimming down services that don't work does need to be part of it, but it's not a big problem and it's never going to fix our looming debt crisis.
anyone who is serious about the deficit (and national debt)
has to be willing to vote against extending the Bush tax cuts.
Because we are still in a recession with high unemployment, one policy to help us recover from unemployment, by increasing consumer demand, would be to extend the tax cuts for people who will spend the tax cut promptly and not bank it, that would be the low and middle income earners. The CBO just published a study of the top 10 most stimulative fiscal polices. Unsurprisingly, the top most stimulative policy is unemployment insurance payments.
Another aspect of making public policy is to have a tax code that help maintain s strong a middle class. Our middle class has been under attack for 30 years, and is in sorry shape.
I strongly dislike the wording of this poll
One could support extending the tax cuts AND extending unemployment benefits. One can oppose both. One can support the first and not the second, or vice versa. Your poll does not include all four possibilities and therefore is of little value.
Or...
One could support extending unemployment and making up some of the difference by not spending $290 million on enforcing legislated homophobia.
Sort of off topic, but on the last one..
My cousin is in the Army (2 tours in Iraq) and he always says " When I was getting shot at in Nasariyah, and my buddies were backing me up, taking fire along with me, you think any of us cared that one of us might like sucking dick?"
Crude, but effective, no?
Seeing McCain at those hearings this morning made an old agnostic thank God that he's not President. Chambliss too.
You're right Ron
the poll was not designed to test for the most popular approach to these policy questions, it was designed to measure the popular support for Sen Scott Brown's cudgel.
Alls I know is that someone
Alls I know is that someone very close to me is on unemployment and I'm trying to accept the fact that that persons family (which is my family) will have probably end up homeless, or welfare \ public housing so that a billionaire can "trickle down"... you know, the way they were trickling down during the Bush administration...