15 Democrats voted for the Tax Relief Bill.

And why DU was busy throwing good dems to the lion, the Senate passed another Tax relief Bill with the support of many, many Democrats.

Obviously, it is more important to try to attack the details of plans from Democrats that all agree on the basic idea that troops cannot stay in Iraq because they are the source of the problem. But may be we could remember that there are other things as important if not more (as these things will be enacted contrarely to Murtha, Kerry, or Kucinich's latest withdrawal plan). This Tax Relief Bill is one of them.

So, even if people do not care, here are the name of the Dems who think we need tax cuts as a priority.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00347

(15 Democrats)

Baucus (D-MT)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

I didn't like the rest of it.

Seems all/most Dem amendments were ruled out of order.

Not final approval, but so far it does not extend the life of reduced tax rates for capital gains and dividends, scheduled to end when the calendar flips to 2009.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/senate.taxes.ap/index.html



Senate extends tax cuts, raises levies on oil firms

Veto threat hovers over $60 billion bill

Friday, November 18, 2005; Posted: 1:01 a.m. EST (06:01 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate passed a $60 billion bill early Friday that would extend expiring tax cuts and prevent roughly 14 million families from paying higher taxes through the alternative minimum tax.

<snip>
The largest oil companies, nevertheless, would be hit with about $4.3 billion in taxes through a change in accounting methods. That provision drew a veto threat from the White House and upset some Western Republicans, who deemed it an unfair and political attack on the energy industry.

<snip>
The overall bill reduces taxes about $60 billion over five years, preserving many tax breaks scheduled to expire unless lawmakers keep them intact. Unlike a version scheduled for debate in the House on Friday, the bill would not extend reduced tax rates for capital gains and dividends. Congress lowered the maximum tax rate on that investment income to 15 percent in 2003, and many Republicans want to act this year to keep those rates in place in 2009 and 2010.

The bill also would offer $7 billion in assistance to businesses and individuals hit by Hurricane Katrina and other storms, filling in details of President Bush's proposed Gulf Opportunity Zone.

Among many provisions extended in the bill are a deduction for state and local sales taxes, investment incentives for small businesses, a business research and development credit and a tuition deduction. Taxpayers would get new incentives to make charitable contributions at the same time that tax-writers put new curbs on charitable deductions deemed excessive.

But I did not choose the name of the Bill. The Repubs did.

An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

(Thirty-one Democrats, plus Republicans Chaffe and Voinovich voted against this bill. The question is why did so many Democrats vote for it?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00347

NAYs ---33

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Corzine (D-NJ)
Lott (R-MS)
Shelby (R-AL)

They are going to be getting some letters from me.

:banghead:

:grr:

:cry:

:argh:

:nopity:

:dunce:

we do.But not for those who earn far more than is necessary to get themselves and their families food, shelter, education, and other essential amenities. If a single mother with two children under the age of 18, who earns 2 millions a year has to pay 1 million in taxes to give the single mother with 2 children under the age of 18 with 2 minimum wage jobs and no health insurance earning 18000 a year tax relief, I'm ok with that. But that's not what this bill, or even any Republican "tax relief" bill, is about.

In essence, this is about framing the debate. Those who earn more should pay more, and talking about tax relief, as if the rich don't get any benefits from their taxes (corporate welfare, infrastructure, government etc) and therefore should be "relieved" this burden is twisting the debate. The republicans are using these expressions to make it sound innocuous and normal, when in reality it's not. Go read George Lakoff - "Don't think of an elephant."

In Norway for example, the principle of paying taxes is that you should pay according to ability. There's a sort of tax ladder, where say all income under NOK57,000 is not taxed,income between 58,000 to NOK200,000 (minimum wage) is taxed 28%, all income earned above that to 380,000 is taxed 36%, while any income earned above that is taxed 46%, 48% 50%, 52% in likewise steps. I see absolutely no problem with the fact that I, a high school teacher, pay more in taxes, both in real numbers and in percentage, than say a nurse's assistant, when I have 150% more in pay than she has. Americans are simply too self-absorbed and greedy when it comes to money.

Jesus Christ, the guy doesn't listen. Fucking mothafucking asshole!

And appropriate. I'm going to print it and use it as necessary.

some SHOCKERKS, and major disappointments here!!!! http://action.ourfuture.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=28629 Is this too late?

Baucus
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Feinstein
Johnson
Landrieu
Lincoln
Nelson
Nelson
Pryor
Salazar
Schumer
Stabenow

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

on edit: Maybe some will finally start to accept that the DLC is the corporate arm of the Democratic Party! No friends of mine, that's for sure!

And I am not typically a DLC basher.

Seems that Bayh had the good sense to vote NO, though.

He's a douchebag either way, better than Coors, bu that is all.

and STABENOW?? I am shocked.

:puke:

actually did than on vague allegations, though.

Maybe that's why they supported it. And aren't oil companies going to be taxed higher? The part of the bill I don't like - and the part that hasn't been acted on - is lower taxes for investment income. In any case, Shrub will probably veto it because the oil companies will have to pay more.

At this point anytime something passes in the Senate that can be bad for the poor and the middle class I can easily guess that Landrieu is one of the Democrats who voted for the bill. I have no problem with making change to the AMT in that it will soon become a hassle for the middle class and poor, which it was never meant to do. However, since it was Bush's tax bill that caused the problem, Bush tax bill accelerated the rate at which middle class people would have to pay the AMT, some changes should be made to his tax bill in order to offset some of the changes to the AMT.

Also, do not call it a tax relief bill. No matter what Republican, the media, or some Democrats call it it is a tax cut bill. Therefore, it should be called a tax cut bill. So some Democrats voted for a tax cut bill. If we must call it tax relief we should call it tax relief for billionaires.

Because of this vote?

:eyes:

I am getting used to DU's spirit, and trying not to be different.

:sarcasm:


(But I took it off)

ultimate DINO, Lieberman wasn't there--maybe he really wasn't there and that explains it! And my 2 frequently, tho not always disappointing Senators--Schumer and Clinton WERE on the list. What were they thinking? and more to the point...What are we thinking keeping them in office?

We can no longer afford to support politicians simply because they have a "D" next to their name. The DLC is destroying this party and until we get progressives in office, the Bush administration will continue to win. They are slowly dismantling our social programs while giving corporations more power and tax cuts.

Wake me up from this nightmare!

:mad: :mad: :puke: :argh:

in another post about AAR.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5391513&mesg_id=5391659

Seems some want us to back any dem without question. I'd rather move than start saying "Sig Heil" to anyone!

I'll move right along with you before I hail to these criminals, regardless of party affiliation.

I'd say there's a trend among most of the Democrats on that list. You see, the bill was going to pass one way or another - only 3 Republicans voted against it. So, what you see here, for the most part, is a list of either moderate or vulnerable Democrats who are looking to run from the "tax happy liberal" label. I can't explain Schumer or Feinstein really, but the rest of them make pretty good sense to me.

If even Lieberman doesn't sell-out, why can't those others do the right thing?

used it. He sells out so often that he needs to keep his powder dry for needed occasions. Other DLCers took up his slack this time.

with the occasional errant vote.

We will never know the number of people that died in the Gulf Coast area due to this administration's negligence. It was a crime, pure and simple, and now they have cut funding to further destroy the poor and neglected in this country. It's a disgrace.

but yet, I'm supposed to look the other way, again, and vote for her next year? Oh, she'll win alright, but with FAR less of a margin than der Party thinks. She's completely lost the Dem. base here.

To the OP: OK, so you post negative news about Dems then condemn anyone who desires to express exasperation about this occurrence -- all in the same post. Interesting what passes for "debate" around here anymore.

I know, I know, "Post Deleted."

both a note:

When do you intend to make your announcement of your party change? Based on your Senate votes this week, I can only assume that you will be resigning from the Democratic Party and gaining membership in the GOP. It appears that the only Arkansans you represent are those whose last names are Walton, Stephens, Tyson, or Hunt. Guess you're also proud of Arkansas always ranking in the bottom ten of the states.

explain in detail why this budget proposal was flawed, how it didn't make sense etc. Then she goes and toes the party line. What a useless woman. As for Collins, I've always known she was useless.

and as far as the Kerry bashers go, many are like the Pro-lifers. One issue voters. They don't care about anything other than their one little issue or they can only handle one issue at a time.