The House bill doesn't go after all of the $32 billion in tax breaks and subsidies that Friends of the Earth, an environmental group, has estimated the oil and gas industries receive, including a $500-million research program put into the energy bill at the urging of then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

From:

http://www.latimes.com/news...

What did the wealthiest 1% do to you random?  Tying war expenditures to a few people only because you think they can afford it more than others?  Many of these people you want to saddle with the financial burden aren't in favor of the war, and they didn't have a vote in it.

Wealthy is not equivalent to evil.  Although some wealthy people may be evil, all are not.  Wouldn't it be great if we could identify evil people by their income or wealth?  But a lot of evil people are poor too.

Having said that, I do believe that corporations should be required to pay their fair share, and any tax breaks for corporations in Bush's original bill should not be made permanent.

I guess the only good reason to defend the wealthiest 1% is that I might aspire to become one of them.  I'm not sure how you know what they do to avoid paying taxes, but I know that a lot of them also donate vast amounts of money to charities, including Dick Cheney, who donated more than half of his 2005 income.  I don't think wealthy people are particularly special just because of their wealth, but I just don't see how its solely their responsibility to bail the President out.  If there are corporate tax breaks or subsidies that can be repealed or left to expire, then I'm all in favor of that.

Yes, I imagine Ted Kennedy *WOULD* vote for it, BJD.  More to the point, George W. Bush would veto it--as his support is *NOT* for the troops, but for those making money from their sacrifice.

.

If the top 1% had not been the target of Bush's largesse previously at the expense of my (putative) grandchildren,  I would not have targeted them exclusively.  But the bottom 99 percent has done more than their share already to make them more comfortable.  And I'm quite flexible--if it turns out that it would take higher taxes on the top 2%, or 3%, to pay for the Bush-McCain War, I'm not locked into a particular number.

Well that would be an interesting constitutional amendment, the country can only enter a war if the top 1% agree to pay for it.  But in the mean time, the President seems to have the power to get us into a war, and congress is supposed to figure out how to pay for it.  Also, I don't think it really matters if Bill Gates or Paul Allen, or Michael Dell, or Sheldon Adelson, or Larry Ellison (5 of the top 7 Americans, and all new money) have been accepted into the Hilton's club.  They could make their own.  We're not talking about separating out old money from new money, or people who would welcome the poor from people who lock them out.  What we're talking about is punishing all of them, regardless of their personal actions, for being rich.

And I wouldn't really have too much trouble with asking them to give more, if I knew it wasn't going to grow into the top 1% always paying for everything.  Although it would be an easy way for me to break into the group.  Pretty soon, we would have 300 million people in the top 1%

Actually, the top 8 Americans are all new money.

And Tom, I guess its really up to the Dems to make sure the one signing statement that you are losing so much sleep over doesn't turn into any criminal activity.  That's their job, and its the risk President Bush takes if he truly thinks he'll be able to ignore the bill.

Yes, I forgot about the stem cell thing.

Its great that those guys are so patriotic.  That seems to contradict what mattloch thinks about the wealthy in this country.  As I've said, I don't have a problem with raising their taxes.  I just have a problem with forcing them to pay for the war.  If we use some of their money to help pay for the war, then fine.  But random said:

Are you trying to tell me that President Bush invented this signing statement process?  If so, he must be smarter than you guys give him credit for.  At any time, if Congress thinks those signing statements are contrary to constitutional law, they should use their powers to do something about it.

As for the Roosevelt plan, I'd have to give it some thought.  But off the top of my head, I'd say I would probably not support it.  If we're talking about getting creative about how to collect federal revenue, and I'm all for that, I would think that we would want to look at ideas that don't revolve around income.  Income is too easy to hide for anyone who owns a business.  I also think that any discussion of how to increase federal revenue must include a discussion of how to decrease federal spending.

Sorry mattloch, I attributed some of ProgressivePete2's comments to you.  My mistake.

But Pete, how do you separate those that you don't like from the rest?  If you are going to tax a group of people based on their wealth, you can't legislate their family tree into it.

Also, I agree that those third and fourth generation rich are spoiled, and other harsher words could describe them.  But I don't agree that all of them are useless.  For example, Paris Hilton is the poster child for spoiled and useless rich.  But she generates wealth for herself through businesses that she has started.  She also spends a LOT of money in the open economy, which translates to employment, not just for her personal assitants, but also for workers who make the things she buys.  Of course some of them just hoard the money as you say, but again, how do you separate those from the rest?

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.^[5] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 247 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. ^[6] As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws. ^[7]

The upswing in reliance on signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Samuel A. AlitoJustice Department's – then a staff attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel – of a 1986 memorandum making the case for "interpretive signing statements" as a tool to "increase the power of the Executive to shape the law." Alito proposed adding signing statements to a "reasonable number of bills" as a pilot project, but warned that "Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation."^[8]

Back to the tax thing though, I notice that tkozy hasn't been too involved in his own discussion.  If you're still paying attention tkozy, what would Adam Smith say about sending the war bill to the top 1%, or 100% tax on anything over a million dollars during wartime, or flat or progressive taxes?

What, Pete, you expect Abu Gonzales to get the Medal of Freedom and a promotion?  When did Bush *EVER* fire anyone who agreed with him?  (I suspect that was the final straw for Rumsfeld.)  I bet Gonzales stays as long as Bush does.

.

Not only *DOES* the Constitution guarantee habeas to all citizens (except in clearly-defined circumstances) it guarantees it to *NON-CITIZENS.* 

.

The business of the Justice Department firing attorneys worries me, too.  Prosecute Republicans, lose your job?

Those of us science-fiction fans here will recognize the name David Brin.  We might want to apply his "adopt an ostrich" strategy here in Bakersfield.  Perfect area for Uplifting ostriches:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.c...

Hurray hurray.  The great and mighty  new congress is going to take tax breaks away from the very corporations that are actually hiring local people (for very good wages).  Yup, those good ol Dems are going to stick it to those evil oil corporations.  Those evil oil corporations who hire high school dropouts for $18 an hour are making way too much money for their own good. They need to be taxed, and any incentive to invest in america needs to be pulled out from under them. They are making way too much money.

At least that is what the Dems are saying.

 Chevron last year made 8.1 cents for every dollar of sales.  The liberal love child, Microsoft, stuck it to the american consumer to the tune of 28.5 cents of profit for every dollar of sales.  Big democratic supporter, CocaCola, made money hand over fist to the tune of 22.2 cents per every dollar of sales.  Citigroup, another Democratic love child, again stuck it to the american people to the tune of 24.5 cents per every dollar of sales.  TimeWarner??  The one that is laying off bunches of people while their CEO jets to his Italian vineyard??  Timewarner, the big Democratic Party supporter?? You guessed it.  Sticking it to the American public to the tune of 10.92 cents per every dollar of sales.

Don't look for any repeal of tax breaks or calls for windfall profits from these companies.  Ohhh no....THey are firmly entrenched in the pockets of the self proclaimed "most ethical congress"