• Take away $85B in annual tax cuts for 1% of top earners. (Jul 2007)
  
• FactCheck: Top 1% only got $67B in 2007 tax cuts, not $85B. (Jul 2007)
  
• Eliminate the tax cut just for those people in the top 1%. (Mar 2007)
  
• Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
  
• Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
  
• Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
  
• Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
  
• Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
  
• Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
  
• Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
  
• Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
  
• Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
  
• Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
  
• Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
  
• Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
  
• Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
  
• Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
  
• Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
  
• Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
  
• Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
  
• Rated 100% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (Dec 2006) "

quote:

According to the Associated Press, possible successors for Biden's spot include Biden's son and State Attorney General Beau Biden, Lieutenant Governor John Carney and State Treasurer Jack Markell, both candidates in the Democratic Gubernatorial race.

quote:





Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. H.R. 2 Conference Report; Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would make available $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' judgment. The agreement contains a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and planned to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would be raised to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include expanding the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005.

Reference: Bill HR.2 ; vote number 2003-196 on May 23, 2003

quote:

 


Rated 15% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes.
Biden scores 15% by NTU on tax-lowering policies
Every year National Taxpayers Union (NTU) rates U.S. Representatives and Senators on their actual votes—every vote that significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers. NTU assigned weights to the votes, reflecting the importance of each vote’s effect. NTU has no partisan axe to grind. All Members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score. The Taxpayer Score measures the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. In general, a higher score is better because it means a Member of Congress voted to lessen or limit the burden on taxpayers. The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100. We do not expect anyone to score a 100, nor has any legislator ever scored a perfect 100 in the multi-year history of the comprehensive NTU scoring system. A high score does not mean that the Member of Congress was opposed to all spending or all programs. High-scoring Members have indicated that they would vote for many programs if the amount of spending were lower. A Member who wants to increase spending on some programs can achieve a high score if he or she votes for offsetting cuts in other programs. A zero score would indicate that the Member of Congress approved every spending proposal and opposed every pro-taxpayer reform.
Source: NTU website 03n-NTU on Dec 31, 2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hiya V,

Did you see the top story on that ctj site?  I would venture a guess to say it is far from being impartial.

What!  Not everything on the Net is TRUE!? 


Also did you look at the quotes provided for each of those positions listed... like this one.


I was wondering about those...


Just pointing out some differences in the way some places post things as facts.

We cannot have facts in our arguments and debates here!
Only opinions without research and qualifications count.

(sarcasm)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

That is very twisted and interesting.  How would this scenario play in Chicago?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

That is very twisted and interesting.  How would this scenario play in Chicago?

Almost the way it did for Obama to get his seat.. A couple of newspapers sued the state to open up sealed divorce papers of the candidate that was beating Barrack, they won, and publicized that Ryan and his wife were involved with some kink and sex clubs.  Ryan's replacement on the ticket was a somebody that didn't even live in the state at the time Alan Keyes... we all know where that went.


Politicos, sex scandals and blackmail?  This needs to be a movie script...

Anyways, back to your specific question.  Something pretty close is about to happen in Illinois.. the 3 Daley boys are going to be running the state. One has complete control of Chicago, one is in a very strong position on the Cook County Board, and the 3rd is being mentioned for possibly running for Gov to knock of  Gov. Rod (who happened to step on one too many toes in the last couple years).  I can't remember but that might be how Madigan got her first spot, from her old man.  It is hard to keep track of all of the neputism, who got what position because of what incident and all.
 

So is the Daley clan to Chicago like the Kennedy clan is to Boston?


I think though under Illinois law, that it would depend on how much time was left in the Senators term, and if it was the full term, that a special election would be required.  I am not certain that a Senator could run for President and Senate at the same time under Illinois law.

And even more contortions will be forthcoming...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sensiia

It has been fact, especially of late that the media is biased and only a fool would dispute that. (awaiting the fools)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

So whose your money on?  Do you have a horse in this race?