Cable Punditry Amateur Hour: Moore vs O'Reilly

[Mediocre]

While it seems that O'Reilly reached the logic at the end of the rainbow somewhat before Moore did, the sheer lack of ability on either side to articulate their points is shocking.  I think their 'debate', if one can even call it that, proves more than anything that the reason they engage in crass bullying and blowhard antics (O'Reilly) and cynical, manipulative filmmaking and name calling (Moore) is that when stripped of these tools, they've got nothing in terms of actual articulate ideas.

The transcript, for anyone who's interested (warning: relatively not-entertaining and mediocre from all sides) can be found here.

(Oh, and yeah, I got a 3 day Corp ban along with Bruce.  By the end of the thread he was light-years beyond me into "WTF?" land, but I gratuitously derailed the thread in the beginning when I really shouldn't have.)

[Arcadian Del Sol]

what happens in retardville stays in retardville.

[HaemishM]

While it seems that O'Reilly reached the logic at the end of the rainbow somewhat before Moore did, the sheer lack of ability on either side to articulate their points is shocking.

In order to actually HAVE a debate, one must actually have points worth debating. Neither of these fuckers has any point, other than trying to shock whomever they are trying to get a rise out of. They are the epitome of "Argument TV" except that Moore is in Da Movies.

And what Arc said stands.

[Anonymous]

That's it.  Poppinfresh is a dead man.

><

[Dren]

I don't watch much TV so I don't have much experience with O'Reilly, but I do read and was tricked into reading some of Moore's, ummm, text.

I agree with the above.  Writing down what's wrong with everything (most stuff quite obvious to anyone that isn't brain dead) without coming up with any solutions OTHER than republicans = bad so just get rid of them, isn't entertaining or educational.  It is just noise.  I can't believe people actually pay for that crap.

I read two chapters and returned it to the guy that told me it was good.  I don't talk to him much anymore.

[daveNYC]

I usually check out the political section at the B&N just so I get an idea of how close to hell we actually are.  Tables full of books saying side X is pure evil and rapes puppies, while weighing in at roughly 200 pages is just sad.  Shit, at least Mein Kamp was thick, these things are an hours worth of reading and promise to tell you everything that's wrong with America/The World, and how it's all the fault of one group.

I just see it getting worse before it gets better.

[Mediocre]

I usually check out the political section at the B&N just so I get an idea of how close to hell we actually are.  Tables full of books saying side X is pure evil and rapes puppies, while weighing in at roughly 200 pages is just sad.  Shit, at least Mein Kamp was thick, these things are an hours worth of reading and promise to tell you everything that's wrong with America/The World, and how it's all the fault of one group.

I just see it getting worse before it gets better.

I do that from time to time.  B&N has Mein Kamph too, though, and as I was leafing through it I couldn't help get the feeling that Hitler could give Ann Coulter a writing lesson or two.

I mean, shit, when Hitler said my people were secretly trying to destroy Germany from within and must be opposed at all costs, I felt mildly more convinced than when Coulter talks about how all liberals have joyless sex.

[Rodent]

Writing down what's wrong with everything (most stuff quite obvious to anyone that isn't brain dead) without coming up with any solutions OTHER than republicans = bad so just get rid of them, isn't entertaining or educational.

There are alot of things I can point out as being bad, yet I cannot come up with a realistic cure for the problem. That doesn't make it pointless to belive/voice the opinion that it's bad.

Now, let's spell it out...just because you don't have a solution doesn't make it any less of a problem

PS: Since I'm a swede and probably not in danger of being attacked of either Bush or Kerry, I could care less about the political issues in this thread.

[SirBruce]

It does when you're talking about political discourse in an election cycle.  Moore's entire motivation is to get Bush out of office (his own admission).  So saying "Bush did X and X is bad" isn't enough reason to vote for Kerry.  He needs to show how Kerry has a solution that prevents or ameliorates X.  If not, then X might just be one of those things that neither candidate can solve easily, and which I might not punish Bush for simply because it became an issue on his watch.

Bruce

[Joe]

Jesus fuck. It's weird agreeing with Bruce. You're on a roll, man.

(Still voting Kerry)

[Mediocre]

I think it's an issue of who you feel is "on your side".  Personally, I'll make no bones about it.  I feel the Democratic party is, on a broad spectrum if not on any specific issue, on "my side".  I feel that even if Kerry is against what I feel is the correct, 'rational' position on an issue, he'll listen to reason and perhaps change his mind, and even if not, on the whole he's "the right guy" for the job.

Kerry always struck me as presidential in both his thought processes and his stances, in a way that Bush never did.  I think he's a president that'll steer the country relatively well, especially in the next four years -- I was okay with Bush until September 11th, because I figured he'd be a sort of four-year Gerald Ford, not really fucking with anything too much.  I figured he'd do his time, have some fun, go back to running a baseball team or something and maybe next time around we'd find somebody presidential.

Kerry doesn't invite some fiery passion within my loins, but I'm not sure a president should.  However, he does have that intangible 'leadership' quality that I think is important for a President to have.

Of course, that general "go by feel" vote isn't a substitute for thorough research and a firm grasp of complex and multifaceted issues.  But pretty much the only real alternatives are being a single-issue voter or just picking the guy who matches up the most with your positions on the "hot-button" (read: issues people can become passionate about and yell really loud without having to be informed) issues.  But really, that's what voting for congress is for.  For a president, for a guy who has all sorts of intangible power within the system in ways which transcend "What will he do about X issue", in my opinion, you want a man like John Kerry.

[SirBruce]

Since no candidate won't agree on me on all issues, I consider the following:

1. The issues they do agree with me on.

2. On the issues they disagree, I determine how harmful their alternative is.  If it's not too harmful, or it's something harmful we already have anyway and won't change right away, or if it's something that can or will be reversed later down the road, then their position matters less to me.  The fact that one President may want to adjust certain environmental pollution limits to one degree and another to another really makes little difference in the long run, for example.

3. On the issues they disagree with me that I see as really harmful, I judge their ability to actually get it implemented.  For instance, Bush might want to ban gay marriage and outlaw all abortions.  That's bad.  But he has no chance of getting that implemented even with three Judicial Court appointments, so I don't mind him being in office.

4. Finally, trusthworthiness is the ultimate arbiter.  If I can't trust the guy's positions, then 1-3 all become meaningless, because "the evil I know" is no longer known, so he might do something really bad.  I'd much rather have someone I disagree with, but whom I know what I disagree with them on (and don't think they can do too much damage) than someone I think agrees with me but whom might not act that way.  This is why I never trusted Clinton and why I don't trust Kerry.  This is why I voted for Perot against Bush, Sr., because Bush, Sr. showed he couldn't be trusted.  (PS - In retrospect, Perot may not have been trustworthy either.)

5. Stuff like intelligence and reasonableness are certainly valuable, but rarely figure into the equation.  He's going to be far more influenced by his advisors and politics, and I'm not going to have a chance to argue my position to him unless I'm part of a strong special interest group.  So I pay attention to cabinet members more in this area.  I like Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice.  I don't like Ashcroft and Ridge.  So sometimes this is a wash.

Bruce

[Dren]

Now, let's spell it out...just because you don't have a solution doesn't make it any less of a problem

Yep, you're are so very correct.  Yet, if you do this, you are showing that you cannot come up with anything intelligent to say, so I choose to stop listening.  That is what I wrote.  I never said the problems don't exist, but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

[daveNYC]

Now, let's spell it out...just because you don't have a solution doesn't make it any less of a problem

Yep, you're are so very correct.  Yet, if you do this, you are showing that you cannot come up with anything intelligent to say, so I choose to stop listening.

I would disagree, the standard move for most politicians these days is to avoid admitting that problems exist, or if they exist than they are very minor.  Problems require solutions, and solutions usually involve hard decisions that leave one side or another pissed off.  Your chances of making everyone happy, and thereby getting re-elected, go up if you say everything is lovely (within limits) and that any minor problems can be solved with minor changes.  The crop of potential leaders has gotten so weak that I consider someone who actually admits that there are problems that require hard choices, even if they don't have a solution to the problem, to be a better candidate than one who says everything's good and all our problems can be easily solved.

[Soukyan]

The party system is in place because Americans like to compete every four years in the Presidential Bowl and see which side "wins". A rather small minority actually care about the issues until AFTER the election at which point everyone decides to just piss and moan until the next PresBowl. Yeah, you know I'm right. Not that anyone has found a better solution than parties, because really, they're made for the stupid people who can't understand platforms. Broad categorization makes it easier for the numbskulls, even though one candidate may not perfectly fit the mold for that party. Or maybe I'm just overanalyzing an aspect of our government that irritates me.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

This doesn't have to be long: I despise Kerry's post-war actions. Not his post-war opinions or persuasions, but his classless and disrespectful methods of expressing those opinions and persuasions. I could never vote for a president whose every opinion and promise expires in 24 hours. I dont care if he has discovered the magical formula of alchemy and will fix our broken economy in 30 minutes - have him give the formula to someone I can respect, and then I'll think about it.

[HaemishM]

Moore and O'Neill offer no solutions, fill up reams of paper and cans of film with argumentative claptrap, and in the end, all you get is a lot of sound and fury with not a goddamn thing substantial said in the entire process. They are akin to Howard Stern, only with less boobies, and less boobies is never a good thing.

As for picking a candidate, I haven't felt good about the list of candidates since Clinton vs. Dole. None of them have "energized" me. Ewards has come close, just because he has a face, voice and posture I can trust.

Bush, as I've said before, is a simplistic chimp, which means the people he appoints have more control over his agenda and actions than his own principles. Powell was someone I could trust; Rice could have been. Both have followed the party line even in the face of its absolute incompetence to the point of losing my respect. Cheney, Ashcroft and Rove are all degenerate sacks of human skin with black souls and cash register eyes, who not only should never hold political office (elected or appointed) but should be kept away from children and little puppies for fear that someone's going to get strangled. Rumsfeld has the eyes of a man who smiles as he jabs a pen into someone's eyes over and over again, which is actually a quality I respect in a Secretary of Defense. Of course, his lack of clear and concise direction for the treatment of prisoners as well as his convenient disregard for the Geneva Convention in said policies has lost all respect from me.

Thus, Kerry might be worse than the evil I know, but I'm willing to take that chance rather than sit through four more years of the "We were never wrong" brigade led by W and his Flying Fucking Monkeys.

[Alluvian]

convenient disregard for the Geneva Convention in said policies has lost all respect from me.

Doesn't the geneva convention EXPLICITLY concern only uniformed foriegn troops?  I thought there was something like that.  Anyway, the people being arrested are not even part of an army so I don't see how it would apply to them.

[HaemishM]

Perhaps I should be more clear. The PRINCIPLES of the Geneva Convention are more important to me than the legalistic language. Rummy and Bush have pushed at the very fraying edges of the legalistic language in order to disregard human rights for SUSPECTED terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. They are loophole-flying, again disregarding what is supposed to be our moral superiority for convenience.

I do not like that.

And no, just because the terrorists and other countries do it does not make it right that we do it too.

[SirBruce]

But Kerry isn't going to do anything different.  You think he's going to let all the Guantanamo Bay prisoners out when he takes office?  No, he's going to support the new review policy that resulted from the Supreme Court decision, without any major modifcations from the Bush policy.  Future prisoner abuses will simply be blamed on the entrenched bad apples of the previous administration.

In fact, most of Kerry's policies are Bush's policies only "done right", which is an empty promise no one can guaranteee in a massive government beauracracy where any decision gets filtered through 20 people before implemened.

What will Kerry do differently?  Well, last night Kerry told me he'd increase funding for universal health care, education, and other entitlement programs, and increase defense spending while cutting taxes on the middle class, by increasing taxes on the wealthy and rolling back the Bush tax cuts.  Sure, that's possible... but less than 200,000 Americans make over $1 million per year.  If you make each one pay any extra $500,000 a year in taxes, that'll raise $100B.  And ruin the economic recovery in the process.

Sorry, I'd rather have France pissed off at us than pay a huge tax increase.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

What will Kerry do differently?  Well, last night Kerry told me he'd increase funding for universal health care, education, and other entitlement programs, and increase defense spending while cutting taxes on the middle class, by increasing taxes on the wealthy and rolling back the Bush tax cuts.  Sure, that's possible... but less than 200,000 Americans make over $1 million per year.  If you make each one pay any extra $500,000 a year in taxes, that'll raise $100B.  And ruin the economic recovery in the process.

Kerry won't be George Bush. W had his chance, and IMO, he fucked it up. Therefore, he doesn't get my vote. As for what you said, I'm all for that. Of course, those making over a million a year probably won't be charged $500k, but they can afford to give more than the guy making $50k a year. It ain't quite socialism, but it is farther towards the "We're all in this together, rich bitch" idea that makes me all tingly inside.

[daveNYC]

Sorry, I'd rather have France pissed off at us than pay a huge tax increase.

Bruce

You'll probably get both.  Once again, I'd like to recomend Running on Empty as a good read.  It concerns the large bill coming due on the entitlement programs, and how the country is in piss poor shape to pay for them.

[Dark Vengeance]

Of course, those making over a million a year probably won't be charged $500k, but they can afford to give more than the guy making $50k a year.

Um....they already do, by quite a wide margin, in fact. They would still pay far more, even under a flat-rate tax.

With the graduated income tax, capital gains, and dividend taxes, the wealthiest Americans contribute the most taxes. Just one example, cited from this article in the WashingtonTimes.com op/ed section.

To hear class warriors tell it, "the rich" never pay their "fair share." Yet, indicative of how steeply progressive the federal income-tax system had become is the fact that the top 1 percent paid 37.4 percent of individual income taxes in 2000 while earning 20.8 percent of total income. The top 10 percent paid 67 percent of all income-tax dollars to the feds in 2000 while earning 46 percent of income. In 2001, half the nation's taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of total income taxes while earning 14 percent of total income.

Note the in most studies released by the left, they point out that the richest 1% controls of 38% of the nation's WEALTH (not income). If you dig deeper, they point out that this includes all of their assets, and overall net worth.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[El Gallo]

That would be because the word "wealth" means "wealth" and not "income."

The article you quoted is obviously infallible because it was published by our Messiah, Sun Myung Moon.  However, it is incomplete because it ignores payroll taxes entirely, which have the impact of flattening de facto tax rates quite a bit (of course rich folks pay more in absolute terms).  You can find some poor guy who slacked his way through life and wants a free handout whining about that here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer

[daveNYC]

FYI: The median (household) income in the US is $42,409.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h08.html

The cutoff for the top 5% of households (income-wise) is $150,000.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h0101.html

[Mediocre]

Of course, those making over a million a year probably won't be charged $500k, but they can afford to give more than the guy making $50k a year.

Um....they already do, by quite a wide margin, in fact. They would still pay far more, even under a flat-rate tax.

With the graduated income tax, capital gains, and dividend taxes, the wealthiest Americans contribute the most taxes. Just one example, cited from this article in the WashingtonTimes.com op/ed section.

To hear class warriors tell it, "the rich" never pay their "fair share." Yet, indicative of how steeply progressive the federal income-tax system had become is the fact that the top 1 percent paid 37.4 percent of individual income taxes in 2000 while earning 20.8 percent of total income. The top 10 percent paid 67 percent of all income-tax dollars to the feds in 2000 while earning 46 percent of income. In 2001, half the nation's taxpayers paid less than 4 percent of total income taxes while earning 14 percent of total income.

Note the in most studies released by the left, they point out that the richest 1% controls of 38% of the nation's WEALTH (not income). If you dig deeper, they point out that this includes all of their assets, and overall net worth.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

What we need is a really, *really* high estate tax.  Up to 75% or so, on estate values of $1million or higher only.  It'd directly affect me economically, and I think it's the best idea for our country.  It enhances the "meritocracy" ideal as well; the idea that you make yourself on your own merits, not on Daddy's cash.  Of course, the rich will still have daddy's rolodex and ivy league legacies to get by on, so life will still be A-okay for them.

5. Stuff like intelligence and reasonableness are certainly valuable, but rarely figure into the equation. He's going to be far more influenced by his advisors and politics, and I'm not going to have a chance to argue my position to him unless I'm part of a strong special interest group. So I pay attention to cabinet members more in this area. I like Rumsfeld and Powell and Rice. I don't like Ashcroft and Ridge. So sometimes this is a wash.

What you couldn't be more wrong about is that this varies *immensely* from president to president.  You pick a president with zero foreign policy experience, as Bush was, and you are essentially picking his advisors to control our foreign policy.  And advisors are unpredictable people;  Rumsfeld was once a dove, and in previous administrations most all of Bush's cabinet-members were multilateralists who worked with "old Europe".  These are people who have influenced U.S. foreign policy across generations, from the presidents who were in office when my dad was my age until the present day.  Democrats, who have had far less success gaining the presidency, don't have that sort of generations-old foreign policy team.  Rather, their presidential candidates (i.e. Kerry) tend to have more personal foreign policy experience from dozens of years in the Senate.

The book "Rise of the Vulcans", which details the history of Bush's war cabinet in non-partisan, incredible detail, is something you should definitely read.

[Dark Vengeance]

You can find some poor guy who slacked his way through life and wants a free handout whining about that here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13113-2003May19?language=printer

Nice premise....he owns 31% of the company....now just suppose they issue a dividend of ONE BILLION DOLLARS, even though they never issued a dividend before. Way to be realistic.

He then goes on to suggest that the $310 miilion he would receive would do much more good as $1000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs. No shit....so if you feel so strongly about it, why not give out $1000 to 310,000 families yourself? Or start a company and provide some of those 310,000 people with good-paying jobs? Or donate the $310M to various charities?

No shit that $310M in tax-free dividend money would dwarf his working-man's salary....quite a few people that receive dividends don't get such enormous payouts. Make the same comparison based on someone with 10000 shares of stock, receiving a dividend of $0.12 per share....a whopping $1,200.

Yknow...plus the folks that get overtaxed by payroll taxes get this nifty thing called a REFUND each year, which gives them a nice little financial boost in the springtime. Everyone else gets nothing, or owes money to the IRS.

And who matches employee payroll taxes? Oh that's right....their employer does. In the case of a small business, that means it comes out of the owner's pocket.....in the case of  corporation, it comes out of the pockets of the investors.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Dark Vengeance]

What we need is a really, *really* high estate tax.  Up to 75% or so, on estate values of $1million or higher only.  It'd directly affect me economically, and I think it's the best idea for our country.  It enhances the "meritocracy" ideal as well; the idea that you make yourself on your own merits, not on Daddy's cash.  Of course, the rich will still have daddy's rolodex and ivy league legacies to get by on, so life will still be A-okay for them.

Fuck you. If I make a nice life for my family, and leave an estate worth $1M to the kids, you're suggesting that the government take 3/4 of it, and leave the kids with a mere $250k??

Even more ridiculous when you consider a guy like Bill Gates or Donald Trump, where you'd be authorizing the government to simply usurp billions of dollars worth of wealth that the family earned, just because Bill or Don happen to inevitably pass on.

This is why you should never be allowed anywhere near political power of any kind. Ever.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[daveNYC]

I disagree, the family didn't earn the money, Bill did.  75% off the top of a $1M estate is too high though.  I would advocate a progressive estate tax that starts at $1M and scales up to 75% at some large number.  To do otherwise would allow the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of private individuals, and potentially lead to 'noble' families similar to old Europe.

[Paelos]

Hey dipshit, the estate tax is double taxation, and as such is completely moronic. Estates aren't corporations and the government sure as hell isn't getting a double crack at my money when it changes hands at an even higher rate. That's complete bullshit.

I'll break it down even simpler for you. I paid my dues to the USA when I'm working, especially if I made enough to leave a lot to my kids. That means the brackets I'm in are freaking huge. Then, on the way out on top of me being dead and my family grieving, Uncle Sam sends over the tax man again? FUCK THAT!

[daveNYC]

Hey dipshit, the estate tax is double taxation, and as such is completely moronic. Estates aren't corporations and the government sure as hell isn't getting a double crack at my money when it changes hands at an even higher rate. That's complete bullshit.

I'll break it down even simpler for you. I paid my dues to the USA when I'm working, especially if I made enough to leave a lot to my kids. That means the brackets I'm in are freaking huge. Then, on the way out on top of me being dead and my family grieving, Uncle Sam sends over the tax man again? FUCK THAT!

Wah, wah, wah?

[naum]

Hey dipshit, the estate tax is double taxation, and as such is completely moronic. Estates aren't corporations and the government sure as hell isn't getting a double crack at my money when it changes hands at an even higher rate. That's complete bullshit.

I'll break it down even simpler for you. I paid my dues to the USA when I'm working, especially if I made enough to leave a lot to my kids. That means the brackets I'm in are freaking huge. Then, on the way out on top of me being dead and my family grieving, Uncle Sam sends over the tax man again? FUCK THAT!

The founding fathers considered the abolition of primogeniture - the legal system under which family wealth was preserved by the exclusive right of the eldest son to inherit - one of the greatest accomplishments of the new republic. The estate tax was thought to be an essential part of a system "eradicated of ancient or future aristocracy, and a foundation laid for a government truly republican."

Even Teddy Roosevelt and past SCOTUS believed the estate tax as a practical and democratic restraint on concentration of wealth and power that would rip democracy and the republic apart.

Democracy and aristocracy are incompatable and the founding fathers felt strongly that a man should earn his own keep and not inherit it like was done in the old world kingdoms from whence they broke from. Read the words of Jefferson that quite clearly spell out these thoughts.

[Mediocre]

What we need is a really, *really* high estate tax.  Up to 75% or so, on estate values of $1million or higher only.  It'd directly affect me economically, and I think it's the best idea for our country.  It enhances the "meritocracy" ideal as well; the idea that you make yourself on your own merits, not on Daddy's cash.  Of course, the rich will still have daddy's rolodex and ivy league legacies to get by on, so life will still be A-okay for them.

Fuck you. If I make a nice life for my family, and leave an estate worth $1M to the kids, you're suggesting that the government take 3/4 of it, and leave the kids with a mere $250k??

Bingo.  Your kids should have learned to make it on their own, and if they haven't, $250k is still a nice lump sum to pull them out of whatever rut they might be in.

There's also the "compromise" route, of saying that the first million is low-tax or tax-free and everything after that goes to a higher rate.

I don't believe it's really yours anymore once you die; just the same as I always felt Bush's argument that taxes were "taking your money" was morally and philosophically flawed.  As Holmes said, it's 'the price of a civilized society'.  And before you go talking out your ass about how all that money is really yours, consider that you couldn't have made said money without the system which is set up and supported by taxes -- the laws protecting property, protecting finance, and protecting you from having your wealth forcefully confiscated wouldn't be there in the first place.

The argument that all your wealth is truly "yours" and taxation is "taking something that is yours" is laughable at best and deeply ignorant of society's function at worst.

Hey dipshit, the estate tax is double taxation, and as such is completely moronic. Estates aren't corporations and the government sure as hell isn't getting a double crack at my money when it changes hands at an even higher rate. That's complete bullshit.

Since when is there anything inherently, wrong, immoral, unethical, or otherwise bad about double taxation?  Taxation is means to an end, and there's no moral code that says "Thou shalt only be taxed once."  You're taxed double, and more than that, all the time.  There's local and state taxes, federal taxes, and then you're paying sales taxes on your purchases once you decide to buy something with your money.

Exactly right in saying that estates aren't corporations; corporations create wealth and growth, for the most part, far better than an estate does.  Thus, it's in the best interests of society to aid corporations with favorable tax laws, to take full benefit out of globalization -- which is why two thirds of American corporations pay no taxes, by many (somewhat contentious) estimates.

A corporation, in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of fairness and morality, is in many ways more important than you are.  If not in the sense of individuality and the rights thereof, at the very least in the sense of who gets to keep their money.


Ah, but even though you fail to see how the government already gets "a double crack at your money", you won't see it happening to you this time.

You'll be dead, son.

I'll break it down even simpler for you. I paid my dues to the USA when I'm working, especially if I made enough to leave a lot to my kids. That means the brackets I'm in are freaking huge. Then, on the way out on top of me being dead and my family grieving, Uncle Sam sends over the tax man again? FUCK THAT!

No, not "fuck that".  It's called 'the program', and you're going to get with it sooner or later once America's entitlements come due and someone has to pay for them.  Republicans and Democrats whose concern is the monied constituency can minimize the estate tax for now with obfuscation and shifting America's focus to other issues, but when the big bills for the big entitlements come through, good luck arguing with the American populace that dead people aren't the best demographic to pay for it.  The estate tax, especially when only applied to estates over a couple million dollars, is a political slam dunk when the right pressures are exerting themselves on the American people.

Due to the political climate of the moment, the estate tax is on temporary hiatus.  But well before any of us die, it'll be back -- in spades.  And you can count on this; the confluence of forces which will bring it back is big enough that you (and those like you -- which will include me, as I'll probably end up in similar tax brackets, and my parent's estate certainly will) will have no say in the decision on the matter.

[Rasix]

God, I hate Poppinfresh.

I would reuse the Billy Madison quote, but I lack the will.

[SirBruce]

I believe in the flat tax, but if you really want to make the rich pay more, the best way to do it is to add additional brackets for the "uber-wealthy".  The top 5% or the top 1% actually extend way down below $1,000,000 in income.  While I don't like it, as long as you have a graduated tax system I'm not opposed to adding a couple of more brackets at the top above $1,000,000.

My point, however, is you can give them a massive tax increase and you still won't cut the deficit in half.  It depends on where you draw the line, but if you roll back the Bush tax cut on just the topmost earners, you'll only recover a portion of it.  A few hundred billion, maybe.  But then you're gonna turn that around and spend that on health care, a middle-class tax cut, etc.  The numbers simply do not add up, and that's before you even calculate the impact on revenue overall to such increases (Laffer Curve or whatever you like), the resulting economic slowdown (You think a guy earning $1M a year will just shrug off having to pay an extra $100K/yr. - $250K/yr. in taxes?).

Bruce