SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (21454)5/9/2004 1:39:43 AM
From: CalculatedRiskRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
I corrected Brumar with this post with the exact text of the amendment:
Message 20109212

Let me add: The Amendment would have spread the $87 Billion over 6 years (2005 to 2010). Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% generates $50+ Billion per year, so less than 1/3 of the tax cuts for the wealthiest tax payers would have been rolled back!



To: Orcastraiter who wrote (21454)5/9/2004 7:07:15 PM
From: Brumar89Respond to of 81568
 
Guess I remembered wrong.

Message 20110481

However, the version of the final version of the bill didn't call for tax increases. And I think it was irresponsible to refuse to fund an operation when troops are in the field over a tax dispute.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News