| Bipartisan?????? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 11 2010, 06:49 PM (286 Views) | |
| kbp | Feb 11 2010, 06:49 PM Post #1 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 11 2010, 06:51 PM Post #2 |
|
I'm all for spending less, but I can only laugh at how small this makes Zero's job bill look! |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 11 2010, 07:51 PM Post #3 |
|
I just want these fools out of office and November's election can't come soon enough. It is as if everything is just funny money to them. Speaking of jobs! A new White House economic forecast showed Thursday the US economy is set to start producing job growth this year at a rate of 95,000 per month, but that the unemployment rate will remain high. President Barack Obama's annual economic report to Congress said the economy is on the verge of pulling out of a period of steep job losses stemming from the worst recession in decades. But the report also said that the unemployment rate may not come down much from the current level of 9.7 percent, and may even rise because of labor market growth and the return of more discouraged workers to the labor force. The White House forecast, most of which was previously released with budget documents, calls for growth in gross domestic product of around 3.0 percent in 2010 and an average unemployment rate of 10.0 percent. "Because projected GDP growth is only slightly stronger than potential growth, relatively little decline is projected in the unemployment rate during 2010," the report prepared by the president's Council of Economic Advisors said. "Indeed, it is possible that the rate will rise for a while as some discouraged workers return to the labor force, before starting to generally decline. Consistent with this, employment growth is projected to be roughly equal to normal trend growth of about 100,000 per month." ...snipped http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.b9bb6178bc5eae7ff36450b1f5a7fffd.2a1&show_article=1 So let's get this right. Unemployment will rise despite adding more jobs because people who are not working don't count as unemployed so as they get hopeful and start looking they will count as unemployed. So they don't have a job now, but they are not considered unemployed? That DC for you. |
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Feb 11 2010, 08:20 PM Post #4 |
|
55% estate tax in 2011? Oh my God! We're becoming like England. Utterly destroying inheritances for your children by giving it all to the government. This is unbelievable. This HAS to have been created in Obama's administration because I assure you that there is no way that Bush would have allowed this to go through. (It's also got to be Obama's doing because of the fact that this whopper of a raise takes place after the elections this fall.) |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 11 2010, 08:58 PM Post #5 |
|
I'd have to re-read it, but I am fairly certain it was at 55% on the balance greater than $1 million when it went to -0- tax in Bush's administration. I recall following it long ago when it jumped from $600,000 as the starting point. I am definately open to being corrected here. Edited by kbp, Feb 11 2010, 08:59 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Feb 11 2010, 09:05 PM Post #6 |
|
I think you are right, kbp. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 11 2010, 09:06 PM Post #7 |
|
Congress ensured that the law sunsets in 2011. That is, on January 1st, 2011, the estate tax rate will return to its pre-Bush levels. Practically speaking, this means the difference between dying on December 31, 2010 and January 1, 2011 can mean 55 percent of your estate if you are person of means! http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/estatetax/f/estatetaxrate.htm It goes back to the levels when Clinton was President. In general I agree with sunsetting laws. Congress just needs to reapproved them. |
![]() |
|
| Carolyn says | Feb 11 2010, 10:03 PM Post #8 |
|
"In 2010, the estate tax rate drops to zero percent; if you die in that year, your heirs would not pay taxes, even if you passed on $20 billion!" Pardon me, but my gruesome little mind can just see a whole bunch of heirs standing at granddaddy's dying bedside on December 31st, 2010 and as the clock moves closer to midnight, one of those kids pulls out a Colt .45. |
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Feb 11 2010, 10:22 PM Post #9 |
|
Not unless old Granddaddy spends all of 2010 looking for a loophole and finds it by Dec. 31. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 11 2010, 10:40 PM Post #10 |
|
I'm sensing this was a set up by the Dem's to muddy the Rep's on the bipartisan issue. There was no doubt what the Rep's wanted with the bill, as was agreed too a couple hours before Reid tried to make it look like he's the rule maker in the Senate. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 12 2010, 06:37 AM Post #11 |
|
Regarding the so-called Estate Tax. Call it what it is - a tax on dying. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Feb 12 2010, 07:32 AM Post #12 |
|
Death & taxes... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






9:28 AM Jul 11