Hagan does not follow ConservaDems on proposal to cut estate taxes

By not joining with other moderate to conservative Democratic Senators that voted for an amendmentment to cut estate taxes for the very rich, North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan was not on the list of ten Democratic Senators that voted to greatly cut estate taxes in the future. A $250 billion dollar amendment introduced by Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Jon Kyl (Party of Greed-AZ) was passed today by a vote of 51-48 in the US Senate.

The ten Democratic Senators that voted for the amendment:

Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Cantwell (D-WA), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Tester (D-MT)

Way to go, Kay! I'm truly sorry this POS legislation was passed in order to make sure Sam Walton's progeny wouldn't have to send more of their inheritance to the money grubbing government, but I'm very happy that OUR Senator Hagan did not agree with this obvious mistake of an amendment.

In these tough economic times, $250 billion could go a long way towards little things like healthcare for all Americans, government jobs programs, infrastructure upgrades, etc.

You got this one right Senator Hagan, and I'm happy to crow about it.

From the NY Times, a bit more on this amendment.


Read it and weep.



I just had to point out the irony of you referring to the Republican Party as the "Party of greed" simply because they have the "nerve" to want to keep the wealth they worked hard for to earn, yet you don't consider yourself greedy for sticking your hand out and demanding they give you a piece of that wealth that you did nothing to earn.

Think about that for a little bit.

To whom are you referring?

simply because they have the "nerve" to want to keep the wealth they worked hard for

In this scenario anyway, "they" are dead, and said money is being transferred to another. That transfer is called INCOME, as in it's "coming into your pockets" from elsewhere.

Now tell me this: you've got one person who's digging @#$%^&* ditches to earn his income, and another who's waiting for somebody to die to earn his income. Should one of these individuals pay a higher percentage of tax for his income? If so, which one?

Caveat: I know you want to say it, but you can't say, "Neither should pay taxes." ;)

I thought about it.

When wealthy shareholders invest in companies that exploit poor people for personal financial advantage, I'd call that greed.

When a poor person living in a cardboard box asks for medical care? Not so much.

"Very Rich"

I would not call a $3.5 million estate "very rich." The most recent numbers I could find show there are more than 9 million households in the U.S. with assets, excluding homes, of more than $1 million. When you include homes, as estates surely do, I'm sure that adds millions more households to the millionaire ranks.

When I do retirement calculators,they tell me I'll need $3+ million for a middle class retirement.

The point is, do we want kings and landed gentry in America?

That's what you get when you give tax breaks to the wealthiest in the country and then allow all of it to be passed on from generation to generation.

If the vehicle that allows one to rise to the heights of wealth that some achieve is the strong shoulders of this country, then surely these dues are owed.

ps- don't mind me, I've been working on my income taxes today. I get like this near the 15th of April.