Why were there no headlines CLINTON & SCHUMER - Liberal NY Dems Vote Yes

[clitzpah queen]

for $70 billion in tax cuts to the Wealthiest Americans? Why is this just a ho-hum fact? How will we liberal/progressive New Yorkers hold them accountable for their betrayals?

[mattclearing]

1. link?

[sasha031]

4. here it is

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00010

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Have to satisfy their Wall Street contingency.

[applegrove]

3. Didn't they vote not on the budget cuts? So was there a second bill

that day?

[ananda]

5. WTF. LIberal?

Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer are NOT,
repeat NOT liberal.

They're just barely to the left of the right wing.

[sasha031]

6. it's patheitc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202960.html


Senate Passes $70 Billion in Tax Cuts Over 5 Years


One day after Congress gave final approval to a contentious measure to reduce the deficit by nearly $40 billion through 2010, the Senate last night easily approved a $70 billion tax-cutting measure that would more than wipe out all those savings.

The five-year measure, passed on a bipartisan 66 to 31 vote, would extend a variety of popular tax breaks, such as business tax credits for research and development, while blunting the growing impact of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system established to hit the rich but increasingly pinching the middle class. Senators loaded up the measure yesterday with new tax breaks for coal-mining safety equipment and new spending on military equipment and veterans' health care.

A final package must still be negotiated with the House, which in December dropped the provision on the alternate minimum tax in favor of a two-year extension of President Bush's dividend and capital gains tax cuts of 2003, which expire in 2008. Those negotiations will be hard fought. On a 73 to 24 vote, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution last night saying the provision should be given priority over extending investors' tax breaks.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I think they bowed to pressure about the alternate tax hitting the

middle class.

[papau]

8. Not a bad bill - it does NOT extend the rich folks investment tax cut

We get a small guy alternative minimum tax fix, a business credit for research and development for 2 years, plus deductions for college tuition and teachers' expenses, as well as a credit for low-income savers.

It changes an accounting practice used by oil companies and hits them with $4.3 billion in increased taxes, and gives a tax break for coal companies that spend more on safety equipment and training.

It then spends money for military equipment, veterans health care, disability compensation and hospitals.

The danger is that in the end the extra spending will be stripped in conference - and the House passed 2 year extension of the investment tax cuts for the rich will be put in.

But that is what happens when you do not have the votes.

Hillary did a good job getting the GOP on record as not supporting her amendment for an independent commission to study the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Now when in the future Hillary talks about tax cuts for the rich, her vote for this version of the bill will hurt her how? It shouldn't hurt her at all.

It was an excellent vote - except, again, that in conference the GOP will strip out the good stoff and good design that Hillary and the other Dems put into the bill, and then try to ram through the House tax cut for the rich.

But your post implies Hillary voted for the GOP " tax cut for the rich" - and that is not true.

[William769]

9. Doesn't matter if it's true

It's the same tactic that the Repukes use. Blind hatred of Hillary Clinton really boggles my mind. & it's not disagreements, it's HATRED.

[clitzpah queen]

10. How is it not true that Hillary voted for a GOP tax cut for the rich--

along with 16 other Senate Democrats. This was an extention of the tax cuts established before. There may have been other pieces attached to it that for YOU lessened the blow, but the main piece of it is that it eliminates $70 bil of revenue that would come in from the US wealthiest over the next number of years while Only Yesterday, $40 bil of spending cuts were made to the folks in this country Least deserving of cutBacks. How does that get justified? It's Sick! I pointed out Schumer and Clinton because I am from Liberal New York -- with those great speech making Liberal Senators who talk a good game about unfair tax breaks to the wealthiest, and then vote disgustingly. There needs to be some kinda tribunal or something.....

[papau]

11. The tax cut for the rich is the investment tax cuts - they are not in the

Senate Bill.

:toast:

Any tax cut is for those that pay taxes - so if you are against all tax cuts, and claim the rich are the only ones to benefit from ANY tax cut - have at it.

But the Senate bill was targeted to give only the middle class a tax cut - not the rich.

To the extent spending cuts on programs for the poor are used to justify the tax cut - such as the $40 bil of spending cuts passed this week - then you are correct that there should be NO tax cuts - ever.