that's a moronic analysis. He didn't mean just you, he meant all the faux-intellectually superior left-wing cut and runners who free ride off of W's military effourts to win the war on Terror and save America for future generations of patriots who love freedom. I am sure if you toss in guys like Soros, Gates, Buffett and there ilk the number will rise a bit.

Buffett is a big suppourter of estate taxes. If he died today how much would he pay? Anything or is all protected for avoidance by the foundations he set up? If estate tax is so great, why didn't Buffett just set up his estate so that the $40-50B went to the US treasury? What a patriotic act that would have been. Instead he will avoid but advocate it for the family farmer and other small businessmen and womens who work hard all their life to amass a few million and then have the liberal hoi polloi rape their estate so Pelosi and Hillary can have more money to feed off the public trough.

The only estate plan I have is keep it offshore and leave my kids the arsenal for protection if the IRS ever comes sniffing around.

Well, Gates and Buffett (at least) have come out against the repeal of the estate tax.

STP.

STP.

In any case, if the point were to protect family farmers and small business persons, then why not a carve-out? They are treated differently all over the place under federal law.

Where's Waldo?
 

1. Generally, do you tend to trust or distrust government's ability to solve problems?

Trust
Distrust


2. Which do you trust more:

The Pentagon or
The U.S. Postal Service?

The executive branch or
The legislative branch?

The FBI or
The IRS?

The CIA or
The Peace Corps?

The Joint Chiefs or
The United Nations?


3. What about private institutions and people? Which do you trust more?

Trial Lawyers or
Doctors?

Union leaders or
Business executives?

Professional athletes or
Team owners?


4. The federal government should do more to solve the nation's problems even if it means higher taxes on (pick as many as you want.):

You
Big corporations
The weathly
The Middle Class
Small Businesses
None


5. Where should government be cut? (pick as many as you want.)

Eliminate farm subsidies
Eliminate subsidies to the arts
Abolish public broadcasting
Cut entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.)
Cut defense spending
Reduce welfare spending
Reduce foreign aid
Keep illegal immigrants from receiving public education
Reduce environmental regulation
Cut taxes
Don't cut at all


6. Which would do more to guarantee competitive elections?

Term limits
Public Financing


7. Who was a better president?

Ronald Reagan
Franklin D. Roosevelt


8. Do you see the ideal America as an ethnic "melting pot" in which religious, cultural and ethnic distinctions are blurred, or as a nation in which ethnically diverse groups ought to coexist while retaining their cultural identity?

Melting pot
Multicultural society


9. Whose political views do you consider more extreme, those of (former) Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders or the Rev. Pat Robertson?

Elders
Robertson
Neither


10. Which would curb violent crime most?

Stricter controls on the sale of guns
Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in the commission of a crime
Both


11. In the long run, do you think we can reduce crime more by building more prisons or providing more financial assistance to rebuilding our inner cities?

Build prisons
Rebuild cities
Both


12. Even if it means cutting programs, spending must be cut to reduce the federal deficit.

Agree Disagree


13. The federal government is too big.

Agree Disagree


14. U.S. interests are more seriously at stake in Haiti than they are in Korea.

Agree Disagree


15. Gays and lesbians should be able to marry or at least be treated as married under law if they so desire.

Agree Disagree


16. The news media is dominated by liberals.

Agree Disagree


17. The religious right is a threat to our political system.

Agree Disagree


18. The federal government should include funds to make abortion services part of any standard benefits package in health care reform.

Agree Disagree


19. Deceptive political campain commercials should be banned.

Agree Disagree


20. Graphic pornography should be banned.

Agree Disagree


21. As a society, we should spend more money trying to find a cure for AIDS than for cancer and heart disease because AIDS threatens younger people.

Agree Disagree


22. Talk radio shows should be regulated to ensure both sides of a debate are represented, because talk radio has an unhealthy impact on the political process.

Agree Disagree


23. The breakdown of the traditional family is the most serious domestic crisis facing our society.

Agree Disagree


24. Woman and racial minorities should be given preferences in hiring until we achieve true gender and racial equality in America.

Agree Disagree


25. Certain environmental problems call for government action, even if it means new programs or increased taxes.

Agree Disagree

---
Where or where was the estate tax in that test, hmm?

They are also treated more favorably under the estate tax as well. You forget that you're responding to Penske, whose response to anything that can't be answered with a photoshop is to lie.

Where's Waldo?
 

I glazed over and could only skim this. Was there a point somewhere?

Huh. Not falling into either category, I did not know that. Was this the case prior to GWB?

Where was the lie? That your wealthy limousine liberal comrades advance and advocate taxes, including the death tax, everywhere that they can, and yet avoid those taxes by paying lawyers and accountants vast sums to skirt the law or exploit loopholes, while the hardworking Americans of more modest means get their accounts and estates raped by the oppressors of the liberal conspiracy?

I guess socialists just look at things differently than capitalists.

Where's Waldo?
 

The point was that (i) this was the actual wording of the quiz that everyone here took, (ii) the only way someone like Adder could get 11 on this quiz was to answer every question in the affirmative that we need bigger government programs on everything and higher taxes on everything to fund them, and (iii) if he truly felt that way, he could easily give more of his big paycheck to the Feds.

And after I pointed this out, you and Ty - not Adder, I might add - trotted out the Sheehan-istic mantra of "why didn't I enlist in Iraq" as if this had anything at all to do with anything.

My "point" was directly tied to the conversation of the day, whereas your "point" was to take an unprovoked [and irrelevant] cheapshot at me using a silly leftist mantra last overheard from some nutjob in Berkeley.

Where's Waldo?
 

Just so that we're clear, my point was that suggesting that someone who supports higher taxes should donate their money to the government is as moronic as the suggestion that you don't really support the war unless you enlist, not that the Berkeley nutjobs were talking sense.

Where's Waldo?
 

I've never read or heard anything Sheehan said. I think you may be the only person that listens to her.

Presumably, she really believes that anyone who says we should be fighting in Iraq should enlist. I don't believe that. I just believe that anyone who takes your position -- that if you oppose the Bush tax cuts "the only honest solution" is to voluntarily give money to the federal government -- is as big an idiot as Sheehan.

But, if you want to spout off like some Colorado Springs -- Heritage Foundation -- Taxes are the root of all evil -- if you oppose tax cuts give your money to the government -- Rush Limbaugh dittohead moron, be my guest.



eta: What Ty said. STP, once again. OTOH, since you apparently missed the (incredibly obvious) point twice, it's probably helpful for us to keep explaining it.

Where's Waldo?
 

Wrong. Democrat party stalwart John Conyers apparently is in her thrall. Why do you all attempt to deny she is the darling of the New Demo party and they exploit her and her platform for all the treasonous anti-Bush value that they can get out of it? Are you all scared to look into the mirror of the Demo party and see the anti-Freedom pro-socialist pro-terrorist agenda your so-called leaders are spouting?

As for paying more money into the Treasury voluntarily, personally I give to causes I believe in, on principle,. regardless of how much of a difference my contribution may make in a vaccuum. Most of these causes are to help the poor and downtrodden in our society who have been duped into a life of perpetual underclassment by drinking the plantation flavoured kool aid of the Demos. If y'all believe in higher taxes why not put your money where your mouth is?

Spanky helps bring the NHS nightmare to California......
 

A committee I sit on recommended this to the Governator, and my name is being used as a sponsor. Do you think Slave, Penske and Hank will ever forgive me?


Gov. to seek insurance for all children Illegal immigrants would be covered in his plan to overhaul the state healthcare system.

By Jordan Rau LA Times 1/4/07

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will propose that all Californian children, including those in the state illegally, be guaranteed medical insurance as part of the healthcare overhaul he intends to unveil next week, according to officials familiar with the plan.

If enacted by the Legislature, his proposal would affect about 763,000 children who now lack insurance. Although the administration has not revealed details of how it would pay for such a program, officials estimate that extending insurance to all children could cost the state as much as $400 million a year.

That would be a small piece of Schwarzenegger’s stated goal: to ensure medical coverage for all of the 6.5 million Californians who now have none. Experts say that could cost upward of $10 billion a year.

If successful, the governor’s effort to cover all children would be a substantial political feat. Only a few states guarantee coverage for all those under 18. Schwarzenegger himself vetoed a measure to cover all children in 2005, complaining that lawmakers offered no way to pay for it.

California’s Republican legislators, who blocked a more modest effort to extend healthcare coverage last year, are sure to rebel against a plan that includes children of illegal immigrants.

Schwarzenegger is scheduled to announce his full health plan Monday. His office is still finalizing many parts of that package, but aides have made clear that it will be an ambitious effort to restrain healthcare costs and reduce the state’s uninsured population.

All sectors of the healthcare industry, including hospitals, insurers, doctors, patients, businesses and government, would pay some of the costs under Schwarzenegger’s plan. People familiar with the proposal say that it includes new requirements for businesses to cover employees, though the details were unclear. The more cost shouldered by employers and workers, the less the state would have to spend.

In addition, a number of measures favored by some aides, such as limiting the profits of insurers, remain undecided.

"There is no final health plan," said Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger’s communications director. "As has been the case from the start, all ideas are on the table and the final touches are being applied. The administration is not confirming the inclusion of any one piece."

But several independent sources said Schwarzenegger had committed to the framework of the children’s insurance portion. Administration officials have privately told people outside government that they intend to guarantee medical coverage for children of families earning up to 300% of the poverty level, or $60,000 a year for a family of four. Those families have 90% of the children without insurance. But the cutoff is not yet set in stone.

Schwarzenegger’s proposal goes further than one put forward last month by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland). His plan excluded illegal immigrants. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) incorporated children of undocumented residents into his plan, which also was announced in December.

"A lot of us are really looking to [Schwarzenegger] for leadership," said Wendy Lazarus, founder of the Children’s Partnership, a nonpartisan child advocacy group based in Santa Monica and Washington, D.C. "Assuming he is going to tell us that he is going to cover all kids, this is great news for California’s kids."

About 90% of California’s children already have insurance, either through their parents’ coverage or through state Medi-Cal programs that help the impoverished. For years, advocates have been pressing lawmakers to finish the job, arguing that the electorate would be sympathetic to the plight of children.

"It’s the low-hanging fruit of the healthcare reform debate," said Dr. Bob Ross, president of the California Endowment, a private foundation in Los Angeles that was created to push for expanded access to healthcare.

"Kids are relatively cheaper to cover" than adults, he said. "From a public health standpoint, it’s smarter to cover all children regardless of immigration. You just don’t want unimmunized kids surfing around in the population."

Such arguments have yet to win the day in Sacramento. Last year, Schwarzenegger backed a budget plan that would have helped fund local children’s initiatives. Republican lawmakers blocked the proposal, because it would have included coverage for children of illegal immigrants.

"We believe Californians do not want to reward illegal behavior," said Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines of Clovis. "There are so many here [legally] who are hurting and trying to make ends meet, we’ve got to focus on them first."

The GOP is a minority in both houses of the Legislature, but most proposals involving state spending require a two-thirds vote, giving Republicans the power to stop them. However, it is possible that Schwarzenegger’s plan could be molded to need a simple majority vote, like the last major piece of healthcare legislation to become law.

That measure, a 2003 mandate that most employers provide insurance for their workers, was repealed by voters the following year.

Schwarzenegger has taken incremental steps to expand existing programs aimed at children’s health, including the addition of $80 million to the state budget last year.

Martha Escutia, a former Democratic state senator from Whittier who pressed for coverage of all children, including those of illegal immigrants, said Schwarzenegger told her in 2004 that he agreed with her.

"I said very bluntly that there was no way we could distinguish between children based on legal status," she recalled Wednesday. "And the governor agreed. He said, ’Children are children.’ I remember him saying that very clearly."

Sixty-nine percent of Californian children without health insurance in 2005 were eligible for existing programs but were not enrolled, according to the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

That was due to a variety of factors, including inadequate funds in some county programs to cover all those who qualified, and some of the bureaucratic requirements for entering state programs.

Many parents, for instance, are required to prove that their earnings are low enough to qualify their children.

There is disagreement about how many of the uninsured children are here illegally. A 2003 UCLA survey said that 33% were not citizens, but that does not mean that they were in the country illegally. Ross, of the California Endowment, said the number was below 15%.

Most of the other states that already guarantee coverage for all children do it through state-paid programs for those from poor families, and by allowing better-off families to cover their children by paying a portion of the costs for the same programs.

Typically, the more a family earns, the more it pays. Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont all have such programs.

Lazarus, of the Children’s Partnership, said that although California would not be the first to cover all children, it has fewer employers providing insurance and more illegal immigrants than other states, making coverage more challenging.

"For California to step up at this time when states and Congress are really focused on healthcare reform means that California could have a really significant leadership role across the nation," she said.