Sunday, October 15, 2006 <b>

Because the rich owners of the Times want the estate tax repealed and are a major contributor to that cause. The PI endorses Darcy Burner. Which one do you think is less biased?

He's not in my district, but from what little I read about Reichert, he's probably a good man for the job. I think what harms him is being a Republican and thereby associated with the Republican House and the White House, even though he's demonstrated some independence.

I was just thinking yesterday and wondering if a "Dan Evans" Republican could be elected in western WA these days. Fiscal conservative; social liberal. Doesn't fit with the neocon approach, and it seems like such a candidate would be rejected by the Republican party and not even get a chance to run.

Salmo g.

Reichert has no brain of his own. He's a rank & file GOP dittohead.

...which is why we're in the mess we're in now...Brainless dittoheads have been running the country into the shi*ter.



It comes as no suprise to me that the corporate media, especially a outlet owned by a Conservapri*k such as Frank Blethen would support a corporate stooge such as Reichert, Blethen also supports the 920 tax break for millionaires such as himself.

She also has favored letting President Bush's tax cuts expire — a move that would take money from the pockets of all families in our state.

Burner has taken the low road during this campaign, choosing to be deceptive in some of her claims against Reichert, and has continually refused to explain why she failed to vote in four primary and general elections. </b>

Dave Reichert is a moderate voice, he understands the sensibilities of his constituents, he votes his conscience. He has earned another term in Congress.

Speak of the devil.

I would guess then, KK, that you are performing a duty for financial reasons. I would have a difficult time imagining someone as obviously intelligent as yourself mired in the "I vote the Party, regardless of the person!" mob.

In which case, I wish you well.

Darcy Burner, I believe, will be a "rejected" candidate, as opposed to a "losing" candidate. I have no idea why Parties from time to time present candidates who are obviously wrong, and then hope that people will just blindly go along with another Party Puppet. Actually that may be acceptable to some. I, however, will vote for the person who I think will do the best job and who displays the ability to think independently. In other words, a person I can respect.

On another note....My comments about your "pouncing" on everything Rory throws out, (for which you so graciously pronounced me as an asshole protecting Rory), were not intended to protect Rory at all. They were my observations that your reactions are like those of a puppet, with Rory pulling the strings. Rory speaks, you jump. It seems to not be in keeping with your previous statement to Rory announcing that "We can read...." So my question to you is, "Are you protecting us?"

Thanks, KK, but I'll be OK without your help. And you are NOT an asshole.

I heard an hour long Q&A with Burner on NPR the other morning, and she went from "I would vote for her just to vote against Reichert" to "I really like here...she's smart, and she actually answers the questions that are put to her."

Look over the Seattle Times editorials from the past two years...

They have disagreed with Reichert on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE...but one, that one being the estate tax

The owner of the Seattle Times is one of the 215 households in the entire state that will benefit from repealing the estate tax...to the detriment of the other hundreds of thousands of households.

That one issue got him the endorsement...like I said, look at the editorials...they have been 180 degrees from him on every single other issue.

Sounds like a little self-serving claptrap coming out of the Times on this one.

Fish on...

Todd

I'm with ya on that line of reasoning, John.

I know it's all about what feels good not what you have done or will do. Same [Bleeeeep!] birds complaining on the main board about crime and how this state are willing to elect another do nothing ,done nothing ,don't hunt don't fish politicao just because she has a "D" behind her name.

The estate tax. If you think it is right that someone is taxed on earnings that they have already been taxed on just because they die and pass it to their survivors jsut because they are " rich" you are an envious socialist.

Keep it up Washingtoon is one of the most F'd up states in the union because of idiots like you.

Those "rich" people don't need it.

Many of the very wealthy have maintained or increased their wealth via breaks and subsidies. I don't mind a bit making them pay the piper upon death. In fact it seems to be a pretty good deal for them that they get to hold on to it until they die. Especially those who pay little to no tax. F em.

TK, I don't think anyone would miss you if you moved to another state. In fact it would raise the states intelligence curve quite a bit.

Stlhd,

If you moived out of the state we would have one less overweight woman.

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
From Robert Longley,

Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says
Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.


In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.


The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.
The White House has announced it will lobby Congress to pass legislation making most of President Bush's tax cutting measures permanent.

Source: U.S. Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<b> Redistribution of wealth and public policy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Longley: Robert holds a bachelor's degree in landscape architecture from Texas A&M University.

HAHA.

Some don't realize the original purpose of Estate/Inheritance taxes. They were purposely intended to prevent the Getty's, Rockefeller's and such from amassing wealth through the generations to the extent that the family controlled everything. That would kind of screw up a democracy don't ya think?

I am taking a guess, but I think that the tax cut arguement might have merit. I am not sure of how the estate laws work exactly but perhaps: A person could use tax free exchanges to build up a large property inventory without paying any taxes on the wealth created. They then take out a mortgage to use the money tax free, thereby gaining use of some of the gained wealth without losing any to taxes. The interest is offset by income on the property and depreciation. At the time of death, the properties would be handed over to the heir, minus the taxation that had been avoided and any recapture of depreciation. Unless the properties are mortgaged to the max and the money taken out all spent, they have effectively avoided the entire taxation of years of appreciation on a property and at the same time have reaped tax benefits for years. The property would not, of course, had to ever been mortgaged, but I wanted to show how they get to use the money tax free in the short term and then pass it on tax free in the long run. Since most wealth is accumulated in real estate, most wealth could go untaxed.
Oh yeah, the new tribune also endorsed him.

Can't.

She already had to spend it to cover higher gas prices.

I guess her tax cut was redistributed to Exxon-Mobil.

Originally posted by TheKang:
I'll tell ya what, Steven. If you continue to be a super giant ass to me and everyone on this board, I'll make it my mission in life to someday reduce you into a snivling fuc%ing coward in front of your family and friends. I know people you know. Ask them about me, bigshot.

I can't think of a single positive thing you've ever contributed to this board, and why the powers that be have chosen to allow your contined presence is beyond my comprehension.

We WILL meet one day, mutherfuc%er, and I'm looking forward to it.

I'll sit here and shake until that day Tim.

Comments removed.

Sol,

You know he isn't worth it. Not even the mental energy, let alone the physical.

He is winning in a way, tho. He's here to annoy people as much as he can, and he's succeeding. The most effective thing all can do is to treat him like a troll, which is what he's doing, and ignore him. Never respond to anything he says. I've seen trolls leave other forums once people realized and everyone ignored them.

However, if you do wander up to Carnation to reduce him (how about an extra-ordinary rendition?), you might announce it here in advance so interested parties can come watch, you know, sell peanuts and beer, etc.

t.i.c.,

Salmo g.

Where gloves. I think he has some sort of disease.

Oh, Aunty M, that's, that's just awful. Sick, even. Oh, that leaves a bad taste. You may have just crossed the line with Sol with that post. have a good weekend. I'm gonna' tie some flies and maybe drive over to the Grande Ronde if this weather system doesn't knock it out, too.

Yeah, I know nice people who actually associate with Sol. Not so with TK, tho.