# Defend Senate Republicans denying 1st responders for the rich **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2010, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489 "2010-12-17T07:34:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/41 "2010-12-17T21:59:43Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > [From the citation I gave above:](http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) > > **9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?** > > _No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted._ That is a dodgy cite. He starts off with anecdata at the extreme. Then doesn’t give any context about whether the original 17% number is inflation adjusted or not.. then he proceeds to use inflation adjusted numbers in the 2nd half of the paragraph to confuse the issue. The real increase in median household income, in 1994 dollars is right about $1000 - or about 3%. [Cite](http://www.house.gov/jec/middle/crunch3/fig-2a.gif) He’s doing a lot of slight of statistics to prove his point and you should really look into his claims for a bit more… objective source. Like the actual data. It’s not tough to get at the data he’s using to make his claims. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/42 "2010-12-17T22:02:18Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I’d be a bit more impressed with the argument that Democrats’ attempts to do something for the 9/11 first responders are being thwarted by GOP prioritizing the needs of the wealthy - if there was evidence that this issue meant more to the Dems than an opportunity to score political points. > > I don’t recall the Democrats ranking the first responders’ legislation high on their list of lame-duck session priorities - in fact, you’d be hard pressed to find it mentioned at all in news articles and press releases leading up to the session. > > The Democrats unveiled [a big laundry list](http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/121223-dems-stuff-lame-duck) of things they wanted to do - so many that it arguably hindered chances for any single one of them to make it through. > > Near the top of that priorities list was extending the “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy” (which is what the Dems called the tax cuts when they were first enacted, before they “discovered” that the great majority of that money was going to middle class taxpayers whose votes they coveted). Other items getting heavy focus have been the “Dream Act” for children brought illegally into the country, repealing DADT, a renewable electricity standard, cybersecurity, Chinese currency manipulation etc. Funds for first responders appear to have been well down the list, if they made it at all. > > The current outrage in some quarters over that bill seems manufactured for political consumption. > > Should we be outraged at the left-wing Dems who’ve fought approval of the tax cut legislation in order to hold out for not extending relief to top earners? It’s Paul Krugman’s fault!\* > > \*actually I agree with him on this issue - don’t extend the cuts for anyone; it’s not going to have a significant effect on the economy and we can’t afford them and provide the services people need. You’ve listed many reasons why you think the Democrats have waffled on this issue. And I actually agree with you on most of them. But why is any of this an excuse for the GOP to act like obstructionist assholes now the Dems are finally getting around to doing something. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/43 "2010-12-17T23:21:39Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I’d be a bit more impressed with the argument that Democrats’ attempts to do something for the 9/11 first responders are being thwarted by GOP prioritizing the needs of the wealthy - if there was evidence that this issue meant more to the Dems than an opportunity to score political points. As mentioned, this is not a new thing. For instance, here’s a thread from back in August about the same topic: [Conservatives Overwhelmingly Oppose Healthcare for 9/11 Workers](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=573068). From that thread, [I still feel the same way about it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=573068&p=12772065). ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/44 "2010-12-17T23:44:33Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I don’t have my numbers with me right now, (I can get my references by tomorrow) but right now as I recall, those who earn the top 19% of income pay 37% of federal income taxes … The top 1% pay about 24% of taxes. What percentage of the wealth is owned by those top 19%? And those top 1%? In all the examples I’ve seen, where it is mentioned that the top X % pays Y % of the taxes, it ends up that the top X % also has Z % of the wealth, with Z \> Y, which would make it seem that the top X% are still not paying their “fair share”. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/45 "2010-12-17T23:55:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > **9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?** > > _No._ But it seems to be the general consensus that wealth inequality has risen in the USA in the past 20 or 30 years. I don’t claim to understand exactly what this statistic means, but one article I saw recently claimed that the most accurate measure of wealth inequality was something called the Gini coefficient. [We see here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time) that the Gini index for the US has been increasing, and further above in the same page it says _While developed European nations and Canada tend to have Gini indices between 24 and 36, the United States’ and Mexico’s Gini indices are both above 40, indicating that the United States and Mexico have greater inequality._ ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/46 "2010-12-18T03:36:12Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > What percentage of the wealth is owned by those top 19%? And those top 1%? In all the examples I’ve seen, where it is mentioned that the top X % pays Y % of the taxes, it ends up that the top X % also has Z % of the wealth, with Z \> Y, which would make it seem that the top X% are still not paying their “fair share”. This is a great point, and one I’ve made before. The problem is that income tax does not tax wealth, and we have never figured out a good way to tax wealth. What it taxes are people with incomes, and many of those tend to be actual workers, slaving for a buck–albeit a large buck. That’s why it’s so ridiculously easy to be liberal and wealthy, and be (publicly, at least) for higher taxes on income. It just doesn’t hurt. Teresa Heinz (her family, anyway) didn’t get to be rich by paying taxes. Neither did Sergey Brin or Bill Gates or George Soros. They may all be personally electively generous of course, but from an income tax standpoint, it does not hurt them to raise income taxes. That’s one of the reasons I complain when the media or the public confuses raising taxes on high income earners with raising taxes on “the wealthy.” Sure; the big earners tend to be relatively wealthy. But Bill Gates could borrow a billion dollars against his own stock, live off the loan, deduct a portion of the interest, and show a net loss every year–paying not one red cent in income tax. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/47 "2010-12-18T03:39:04Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > But it seems to be the general consensus that wealth inequality has risen in the USA in the past 20 or 30 years. I don’t claim to understand exactly what this statistic means, but one article I saw recently claimed that the most accurate measure of wealth inequality was something called the Gini coefficient. > [We see here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time) that the Gini index for the US has been increasing, and further above in the same page it says _While developed European nations and Canada tend to have Gini indices between 24 and 36, the United States’ and Mexico’s Gini indices are both above 40, indicating that the United States and Mexico have greater inequality._ Wealth inequality has indeed, risen. The rich are lots richer and the middle and poor are only moderately richer. Whether you find this fact “fair” or not depends on your perspective, I guess. Perhaps a system where no one gets rich and everyone stays poor is more fair than one where everyone can get richer than they are but some people get fabulously wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/48 "2010-12-18T06:40:32Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Isn’t it funny how times wounds all heels. > > If a someone would have posted that same sentence on 9/12/2001 he’d have been banned as a troll inside of 10 minutes. Yeah, well being reasonable and logical wasn’t on anyone’s mind on that date - doesn’t make their attitudes right then and invalidate his point. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Wealth inequality has indeed, risen. The rich are lots richer and the middle and poor are only moderately richer. > Whether you find this fact “fair” or not depends on your perspective, I guess. Perhaps a system where no one gets rich and everyone stays poor is more fair than one where everyone can get richer than they are but some people get fabulously wealthy. You might have excluded a middle somewhere there. Anyway - are the points raised in this thread, that it’s a money grab by people other than the people it was intended for, that the federal government isn’t responsible, etc. - are these actually real objections that the republicans are using? Or are they just holding the bill hostage until the tax cuts are passed? I don’t actually know - it seems like with their stated plan to obstruct everything, it’s that latter. The former is defensible - maybe they don’t think it’s good legislation - but the latter is reprehensible. “We think this is good legislation that helps worthy people, but… cut taxes first or else” is disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/49 "2010-12-18T07:07:07Z")
The only thing I can think here is that the Pubbies expected a total victory in every respect, to beat Obama down so bad that they could then bring this up and pass it, taking all the credit for caring about Our Heroes, and at the same time showing off how warm-hearted and caring they can be, once they’ve got everything they wanted. So they kept stalling on it to push it down the agenda until their massive victory. Plus, such a gesture would look pretty good next to holding back the repeal of DADT. But that’s so stupid, its hard to credit, even from people who have done some amazingly stupid things. But if I’m right, then expect them to do a full court scramble to pass this and try to claim credit for it. We may then need a new word for “hypocrisy”. Hyperpocrisy? Superpocrisy? Super-dooperpocrisy? I dunno. This is crazy, and I’m not. So, I dunno. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/50 "2010-12-18T15:30:49Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > [Here](http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) is one article on some taxes FAQs, **Stoid**. Stephen Moore, founder of the Club for Growth, is a supply-side hack…You can’t take him as a serious cite. He distorts everything. Here are a few of the many problems with that cite: (1) When he considers the taxes paid, he emphasizes the federal income tax, which is the most progressive of all the taxes. (At least in point 10, he does mention the other federal taxes but none of the graphs are based on this. And, he doesn’t even mention the effect state and local taxes, almost all of which are actually regressive.) (2) In point 4, he says: > [@](#): > > I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. But, this is really comparing apples and oranges. The reason that the top 1% is paying more is not because they are paying more given the income distribution that exists than if the tax cut were not in place. Rather, it is because the income distribution has become so much more skewed. (3) In point 7, he says: > [@](#): > > The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts. This is just essentially a complete deception. Revenues always increase over time and as revenues get larger, they increase by larger amounts in absolute terms. However, the effect of the tax cuts from Reagan and Bush are obvious when one looks at the revenues, especially in inflation-adjusted terms and especially if one looks at the revenues from the taxes that were cut (i.e., income taxes). I’ve gone through the data, easily available from the U.S. budget historical tables, in previous threads. The Laffer curve garbage is nothing but garbage…There is no evidence whatsoever that we are close to the turning point on such an oversimplified curve and the clear effect on revenues on tax cuts has been a decrease in those revenues (or them increasing much less rapidly than they were in times when taxes were not cut). (4) His claims about gains being enjoyed by everyone are highly exaggerated (probably mainly because he compares to 1967 and thus looks over part of the post-WW II period when there really were substantial gains for the middle class rather than restricting to the post-1980 times when the gains have been extremely modest…and I am not sure there have been any gains over the last decade). To consider what is going on, you really have to go and look at the CBO data and the U.S. budget historical tables. Trusting Stephen “Club for Growth” Moore to give you an honest assessment is ridiculous! He’s an ideologue in the extreme and nobody except fellow ideologues consider him to be any sort of serious economic analyst. (It is ironic that we progressives get attacked for citing Paul Krugman, who is ideological but is also a Nobel-prize-winning economist, while those on the conservative side have ideologues with no impressive economic credentials whatsoever like Moore.) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/51 "2010-12-18T16:31:43Z")
Just so we are all on the same page, [here](http://www.frontiernet.net/~jshore/Federal%20Revenues%20in%20Constant%20Dollars.pdf) is a plot that I made using the U.S. Federal Budget Tables of the 3 largest components of federal revenues in constant dollars between 1977 and 2010. The Reagan and Bush tax cuts show up pretty clearly in the individual income tax revenues (with some effects of the recessions in there too). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/52 "2010-12-18T16:33:45Z")
The Repubs don’t hide who they work for. They will stonewall any attempt to prosecute bankers who made the economic mess. They will fight closing corporate tax loopholes and will fight for tax cuts for the rich. They want to eliminate the estate tax. They don’t hide who pays their bribes and supports their campaigns. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/53 "2010-12-18T16:40:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The Repubs don’t hide who they work for. They will stonewall any attempt to prosecute bankers who made the economic mess. They will fight closing corporate tax loopholes and will fight for tax cuts for the rich. They want to eliminate the estate tax. They don’t hide who pays their bribes and supports their campaigns. You can cite your assertions, right? ---
**Author:** ![randy054](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/54ee81/32.png) [@randy054](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/randy054)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/54 "2010-12-18T16:42:59Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The Repubs don’t hide who they work for. They will stonewall any attempt to prosecute bankers who made the economic mess. They will fight closing corporate tax loopholes and will fight for tax cuts for the rich. They want to eliminate the estate tax. They don’t hide who pays their bribes and supports their campaigns. As Buffet said, the crooks in charge and the ones that dictate policy are winning. All their ploys they use are tactics in deceiving the majority and erecting straw-men wherever possible. The Book, The Conservative Nanny State by Dean Baker is an excellent read on the rapings and distortions being committed in this country. One excerpt from the book, which is free [http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html](http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html) Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living. This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention. The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on the government. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/55 "2010-12-18T16:45:36Z")
And [here](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220) is the latest on income inequality, real income gains, and the like using CBO data from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Of course, that organization has an ideology too, but unlike Moore, they actually show you the data in considerable detail. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/56 "2010-12-18T17:02:28Z")
The “conservative nanny state”, eh? Anybody else seeing Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins decked out in leather bondage gear? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/57 "2010-12-18T18:35:41Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > You can cite your assertions, right? [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show\_mesg&forum=132&topic\_id=8257818&mesg\_id=8257818](http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8257818&mesg_id=8257818) Of course if you are unaware of the repub stance, you are ignorant or rich and greedy. [Senate Republicans Seek End to Estate Tax : NPR](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4774551) Unless you have been in a coma ,you are well aware of what party has been pushing for tax breaks for the wealthy. Can you say “Bush tax Cuts”. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/58 "2010-12-18T20:40:18Z")
[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/chamber-commerce-lobbied-kill-911-responders-bill/](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/chamber-commerce-lobbied-kill-911-responders-bill/) It is more than most realize. The Chamber of Commerce ,which has morphed into a huge lobbying center for the rich and corporations, exerted pressure on Repubs to reject the bill. They want to keep tax breaks for companies that off shore ans other breaks. The corporations tell them what to do and they snap to it. The funding of the 911 responders health care was supposed to be funded by closing a couple absurd tax give aways to their corporate masters. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/59 "2010-12-19T03:32:00Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > [From the citation I gave above:](http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) > > **9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?** > > _No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted._ A 17% increase over 24 years is no great shakes…and most of that happened on Clinton’s watch, not during the watch of those pursuing the sort of policies that Stephen Moore and company favor. For example, [the CBO data show](http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/average_after-tax_income.pdf) that the average after-tax income of the middle quintile only went from $44,100 in 1979 to $45,100 in 1993. Then, by 2001, it had increased to $51,900. By 2007, it had risen to $55,300 (with more than half the rise from 2001 occurring just between 2006 and 2007) but it has presumably fallen back a fair bit from that high in the last few years. In fact, it may turn out that essentially all the net gains for the middle quintile between 1979 and now have occurred under Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489/60 "2010-12-19T21:52:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The only thing I can think here is that the Pubbies expected a total victory in every respect, to beat Obama down so bad that they could then bring this up and pass it, taking all the credit for caring about Our Heroes, and at the same time showing off how warm-hearted and caring they can be, once they’ve got everything they wanted. So they kept stalling on it to push it down the agenda until their massive victory. Plus, such a gesture would look pretty good next to holding back the repeal of DADT. > > But that’s so stupid, its hard to credit, even from people who have done some amazingly stupid things. But if I’m right, then expect them to do a full court scramble to pass this and try to claim credit for it. We may then need a new word for “hypocrisy”. Hyperpocrisy? Superpocrisy? Super-dooperpocrisy? > > I dunno. This is crazy, and I’m not. So, I dunno. [http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/19/kyl-denies-health-care-for-911-rescue-workers-because-he-doesnt-want-to-hurry/](http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/19/kyl-denies-health-care-for-911-rescue-workers-because-he-doesnt-want-to-hurry/) (Progressive site, you know the drill…) And here it comes, right on time! No, no, we weren’t against it, it was just rushed, it was just crammed down our throats, but now that we are past all the Dem obstruction, why, of course we will lead the way to blah blah blah… I’m becomng a victim of Republican bulimia, every time these guys open thier pie-holes, I totally do the technicolor yawn… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defend-senate-republicans-denying-1st-responders-for-the-rich/564489.md?page=4)