Oh, Mister I’m So Interested In Having a Discussion, you still haven’t answered the questions posted to you in Post #7:
Really? That’s the comeback?
But you bring up a good point. See, here in Canada we don’t have an estate tax at all. So really, I should be encouraging this bit of idiocy, because it’s just one more thing that will push America’s best and brightest our way - along with their investment money.
That’s a tax question. The bill is a Jobs bill.
You need to go let that little chubby you’ve got for tax cuts deflate for a while.
While you’re waiting, maybe you can come up with a plan to pay off what you and your friends owe the country for that little Iraq misadventure. Until that happens, I’m prepared to just say no to tax cuts for you louses.
You brought it up. In Post 6. Here it is:
I asked you a question that went directly to your statement. You’ve refused to answer now, after about 150 posts. So let me ask you again:
Man up, Squirt.
I won’t do it. Neither of you can make me. I will NOT read an entire CBO report. I did, however, check the points that seemed to be disputed, and Sam is right. For example, from the preface:
And table 8 says what Sam says it does, including that the 138 was for farms only, and I also went back at great expense and checked how the exchange progressed in this thread and Sam didn’t shift the discussion from or back to farms. He may or may not be Canadian, though. I have no evidence either way.
There, I hope you’re both happy now.
My apologies for making you read the bloody thing (the report AND the exchange). I know you’ll never be the same again. But thanks for saying that.
No sweat. I just hope I don’t have flashbacks now. 
You keep saying that, and I keep slapping you down every time you try to ‘prove’ it. Are you ever going to learn?
By the way, the guy you’re high-fiving is Mr. “Ronald Reagan Quadrupled the Debt”, and Mr. “1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth”, so historical accuracy isn’t exactly his strong suit (or yours). Next time, before tossing around high-fives about ‘fact-checking’ me, you might want to wait and see which way the hammer falls, lest you wind up looking stupid.
OK, that is a pretty pathetic response, and is not worthy of someone who has been on this board as long as you have.
Only if you’re a tax cut obsessed idiot. ‘Anything’ does not refer to some other crazy tax cut scheme. It refers to a useful addition to a Jobs bill.
Get it? Jobs, that’s what the bill is about, not payoffs for pubbies.
I’ve no interest in talking about how much you would like to get more money back on your tax return. In fact I’d like you to get considerably less back on your tax return until you pay off your debt on the Iraq war.
Still, if you have useful ideas for stimulating job growth, I suggest you write your senator, and encourage him to act on them, rather than just sitting around crying like a whiny ass titty baby because he didn’t get his yearly fix of taxcuts for the wealthy.
John McCain failed to get elected president over a year ago. Isn’t it about time for an end to the party wide temper tantrum?
The part you quoted doesn’t contradict anything I said. It does measure the potential impact of those figures at $1.5 million, $2 million and $3.5 million. (as I said upthread), and it says those figures would all substantially REDUCE the number of affected estates.
Farms is all that matters, since that’s all we were talking about.
Squink my man, I am going to make an educated guess here and you tell me how close I am to correct:
You are very intelligent, performing well in school and also on standardize testing such as the SAT. You probably have a significantly higher than average IQ as measured by accepted IQ test. You are well read, and probably (I am less certain here) have an advanced degree in something.
Your income is in the second to third quintile. You are convinced that you are not paid near as much as you should be based on your intelligence. You believe that as an education major (or something similar), you are clearly worth as much or more than an MBA, doctor or lawyer. You resent the fact that you are not paid on par with these professions. If your profession is unionized, you are in it.
Am I close? I freely admit I could be completely wrong, but I think I have a greater than 50% chance of being mostly correct.
You are one angry person.
Well done. Consider those goalposts moved completely out of sight. Now can you stamp your feet and pout, completing the picture I’ve got in my mind?
Didn’t you just post a picture of Fred Phelps protesting Reagan’s funeral as evidence of opposition from the left during the 1980s? Didn’t you claim that history showed that when a single party has controlled the Presidency and Congress, the federal debt rose out of control? Didn’t you even suggest that Diogenes was crazy for pointing at the 1984 debate with Mondale as indicative of Reagan’s cognitive decline?
Should we revisit your claim that the two Bushes stand out as having increased NASA funding the most?
My point stands. Your posts must always be fact checked because you’re a lying little weasel.
Here, the only thing you were right about was the quoted number of estates versus just farms affected. Good work!
I’m just not following you. The table says at a $1.5M exemption level, 740 estates don’t have sufficient liquid assets to pay the taxes. Sam said this, in assessing it:
That’s right from the report. I don’t know how anyone could take issue with it or call it made-up. That’s what the report says. He added:
…which seems mathematically indisputable. It simply says, as an issue of fact, that 740 estates at the $1.5M level would have insufficient liquid assets, and that’s what Sam cited.
That may have been what some wanted to discuss, but that’s not what Sam started the exchange with, nor did he steer it there, ISTM. The exchange started when he posed a question about small businesses, and then DanBlather jumped all over him, chiding him over bringing up widows and family farms when Sam never mentioned either.
Sam quoted a post where he was specifically challenged to find a cite for widows having to sell farms to pay Estate Taxes, and then trumphantly presented the CBO link as a cite.
I think that misrepresents the exchange. He was “challenged” to support something he never asserted, if that’s how you’re reading DanBlather’s post. His response was completely consistent with the point he raised in his first question, the one DanBlather challenged him to support (with a non sequitur mentioning widows and farms).
Sam’s point was not about farms. Again, DanBlather was the one who brought up farms, for whatever reason, in response to Sam’s post which never mentioned them. DanBlather made a snotty post challenging Sam to support his hypothesis with research, which Sam did.
nope. An education major? I sound liberal artsey? Oh, God, the shame… 
I’m actually quite cheery and easy going. I just don’t tolerate bullshit from people who have harmed my country. When these conservatives have paid for their damage, they can come sniffing around for fresh new goodies, and not one day before.
As a libertarian, surely you agree that they should pay for their excesses. I’m willing to argue whether they deserve any new goodies with you at a later date.
Right now, I’d like to see a jobs bill passed that’ll prevent us from becoming a has-been on the global stage. W damaged us badly, and this is not the time to fuck around with petty tax cuts for anyone. There is real work to be done.
You’re doing it again, Hentor… You want to be careful here.
An honest mistake which I owned up to immediately, and which didn’t actually change my point at all.
No. Do I get to start calling you a liar yet? I said that the only time in recent history where there was a sustained reduction in the size of government as a percentage of GDP was when Congress was controlled by Republicans and the White House by a Democrat. I even went out of my way to be fair and admit that it was a sample size of one and not necessarily proof.
Uh, yeah. And I backed it up with numerous cites from doctors who investigated these claims and said categorically that Reagan showed no clinical signs of Alzheimers when he left the Presidency - four years later. And I also cited the fact that Reagan wasn’t diagnosed with Alzheimers until 1994 - a DECADE after Diogenes said he had it.
The fact that you’re trying to spin this as a sign of my mendacity is beyond bewildering. I was right, Dio was wrong, and I proved it.
Oh, lets! We’ve never done that one before. Ready to get spanked again?
No, they must be ‘fact-checked’ because you can’t stand the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about most of the time.
And every other single thing I said. Or would you like to jump on this particular bandwagon and point out any other errors I made?
It’s like you can’t even read.
No matter what Reagan’s doctors said, you can’t get around the fact that he visibly showed signs of his mental decline during that 1984 debate. You can’t just pretend that debate didn’t happen, and you can’t say it was unreasonable to infer that a decline was going on. Everybody in the fucking country noticed that he didn’t have all his marbles in that debate.