wonder what he thinks about the businesses that force millions of americans to work the week after christmas? should i tell my company's ceo that he is disrespecting the christians that work here since we only have 12/31 off? that said, i'm all for kyl introducing a bill making the last week of the year a mandatory holiday for all employees. or maybe he and his crew can stop being obstructionist assholes and actually do some work for the money the taxpayers are paying them. link to idiot's rambling.
Jesus was born and died on the cross for our sins so jon kyl could have a couple weeks off - matthew 13: 13-16.
I'm pissed at Kyl holding up the Start Treaty ratification process hostage in exchange for lowering the estate tax.
Not sure it's that huge a deal, but this is the kind of stuff you get made fun of for saying. Optically, having a Senator complaining about having to work between Christmas and New Year, while many families are struggling economically and many people are working during that week (and some work on Christmas Day and New Year's Day, too).
This is some amazing compromise bull****. 68 billion for the wealthy. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2010/1215/Resurrect-the-estate-tax-or-lose-250-billion For nearly a year, we’ve had no federal estate tax. The estates those who died in 2010—including at least five billionaires—have passed to their heirs with nothing going to Uncle Sam. Compared to the estate tax in place in 2009, the tax hiatus cost the government an estimated $14 billion in desperately needed revenue. The compromise tax bill worked out by President Obama and congressional Republicans would reinstate the tax for 2011 and 2012 with a $5 million exemption and a 35 percent tax rate. Though obviously a tax increase compared to what estates pay this year (i.e., nothing), that would be much less onerous for the wealthy than the $1 million exemption and 55 percent top tax rate that will take effect in January if Congress makes no changes. Absent congressional action, about 2 percent of estates would pay the estate tax (see red point on graph); under the compromise agreement, less than a tenth as many would owe anything (blue dot). That 0.2 percent would be the smallest percentage of estates owing tax since at least 1934 (other than 2010, when the one-year hiatus exempted every estate). Those relatively few estates—just 3,600 by TPC estimate—would pay much less tax: an average of just over 14 percent of the estate’s value compared with about 19 percent if the law isn’t changed. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, that will cost the federal government $68 billion in forgone revenue over the coming decade. House Democrats have called for returning the estate tax to its 2009 level: a $3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent tax rate. That move would impose tax on a few more estates—an estimated 6,500 in 2011—and would raise the effective tax rate to roughly the same 19 percent that current law would claim. Making that level of tax permanent would save more than $35 billion over the next three years compared to the compromise proposal but would still lose more than $250 billion between now and 2020 compared to what would happen if Congress made no changes in the law. Given the nation’s dire fiscal straits, with huge deficits predicted to swell rapidly, it’s hard to justify giving up nearly $70 billion in revenue that only the wealthiest two-tenths of one percent of people would pay. Congress and the president can justify many of the tax cuts in the compromise bill as stimulus badly needed while our economy is still weak and unemployment remains sky-high. But cutting the estate taxes for the wealthy will do little or nothing to boost the economy and only represents further fiscal irresponsibility.
Tell me something, when you are fired from your job, how much time do get to clear your desk and office? Well, most people get hours if not minute to clear their stuff and leave the building. Then why do politicians enjoy a full two months in office before getting the boot? I know clear and comprehensively the 20th amendment constitutionality of this but still why do they insist on ramming through legislation on Christmas eve and into New Year's day? Nancy Pelosi is demented and along with Harry Reid, both are trying to pass legislation which would have had no support prior to the elections. Why can't these people vote on these issues prior to an election so everyone knows where they stand and how to vote accordingly? Now, after losing the speakership, Pelosi is all of a sudden doing public service and looking out for the little guy. No, these hack career politicians who have been voted out power by the American people are no longer representatives of their constituents. It's time to amend the 20th amendment and inaugurate members right after the elections or freeze the government for two month without the power to pass legislation unless required by a national emergency.
^^^ Oh boy! Care to guess how long START and DODT have been languishing in the senate waiting confirmation ghettocheeze? I'd hardly call it "ramming through legislation on Christmas eve" And now we have idiots like DeMint pulling stunts like this. DeMint's Plans To Force Reading Of START Treaty Is it any wonder the American people still think the president has the nation's interest at heart better than republicans?
Agreed. Jon Kyl is a ****. @ mc mark: Shouldn't legislators read the acts that they're making the law? I'm sure we could disagree on so much, but do you really think representatives should pass legislation without reading it? Come on.
Absolutely bills should be read by the members of congress. That's not what is happening here. The START treaty has been in front of congress for months. DADT has been debated for 17 years. All DeMint is doing to holding the vote, dare I say it, hostage to eat up time.
Yes, legislators should read the bills before passing them, but they don't need to be read aloud on the Senate floor. That's clearly just an attempt to prevent anything from getting done. They're just trying to run out the clock on this session of Congress.
