.

Biggert, Foster Talk Gay Marriage, Tax Cuts at Final Debate

Candidates spar during live event on WTTW.

It’s a question many voters have for candidates: Are you for or against gay marriage?

On Wednesday night, Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert and Democratic challenger Bill Foster took on the issue during their final debate as they battle to represent the new 11th Congressional District.

The candidate forum aired live on WTTW-Channel 11’s “Chicago Tonight.”

After Biggert made the ambiguous statement “I’m close to reaching for gay marriages,” Foster went on the offensive.

“She has not yet evolved. So, she's crawling out of the swamp or something,” said Foster, a scientist, according to the Chicago Tribune. “She has not yet evolved. So, she's crawling out of the swamp or something,” he added, noting he supports marriage equality.

Biggert did note that she supports civil unions.

Another hot topic that surfaced Wednesday is one that’s also become a sticking point in the presidential race: the Bush tax cuts.

Biggert said allowing the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire would be “catastrophic” to the economy, the Sun-Times reported, while Foster said the cuts have not been proven to stimulate the economy or create jobs.

Biggert, who currently represents the 3rd Congressional District, is seeking an eighth term. Former Congressman Foster represented the 14th District from 2008 to 2010.

Click here to watch video of the full debate.

--------------------- 

Did you watch the debate? Which candidate’s views line up with yours?

Tony October 26, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Biggert is wealthy, why would she support tax cuts that would take a portion of her wealth away ?.You would think that she might suggest putting taxes back where they were at when Clinton was in office, but that is not the Republican way and that is why we are forced to vote for people like Foster.
John October 26, 2012 at 02:59 PM
Tony, are you saying people shouldn't be entitled to keep the money they've earned after they've paid their legal taxes? Why is it a bad thing for people to be wealthy? I wish I was wealthy! I work hard to try to get weatly! This country doesn't have a revenue problem (we take in a lot of money), we have a spending problem. The solution is not to raise taxes but to cut our spending on discretionary items.
Southeast Side October 26, 2012 at 06:10 PM
In the 50's the top tax rate was 91%, we sent millions to college on the GI Bill and otherwise and built thousands of miles of Interstate highway, bridges, dams, etc. And the economy grew like crazy. Now, college is out of reach for most, the bridges are crumbling, but hey, the super-rich have private jets! Is this a great country or what? John, you believe the rightwing propaganda too much. http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0070_Discretionary-Breakdown.aspx <b>The programs in this category of federal spending, representing 40 percent of the budget for 2012, are some of the most recognizable (other than individual benefit programs), and include national defense, veterans' assistance, the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, national parks, law enforcement, education, research and development, and investments in physical infrastructure. Defense takes up more than half of the total discretionary spending budget. </b> Since the parts available to cut ( if you exclude defense) is less than 20% of spending. Which will you cut? Veterans? Education? Infrastructure? If you think you can solve this by letting the poor starve, you are lying to yourself.
John October 26, 2012 at 08:00 PM
@southeast_side I don't believe the rightwing propanda, i just do my own research. You know full well the amount of taxes received by the Fed under that 91% tax rate was very little and most used legal means to lower their tax rate. How we "sent millions to college on the GI Bill otherwise and built thousands of miles of Interstate highway, bridges, dams, etc" was based on mostly borrowed money. We can a ton of stuff with borrowed money, just look at what the federal government has accomplished recently, and all with less money coming in from tax revenue. Politicians moved money from discretionary spending to mandatory spending in order avoid having pet projects and pork cut. The amount of discretionary spending starting coming down in the early 60's and, proportionately, the amount of mandatory spending increased. Discretionary spending has increased over 60% during the last 20 years alone! Over the past 20 years, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security now make up over 44% of all federal outlays and they've grown substantially greater than the rate of inflation each year. Both parties are to blame for these increases by pandering to voters and indicating they could provide governement services to everyone at little or no cost. It's simply not sustainable.
Pro Life Crusader + October 26, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Biggert gets my vote for opposing same sex marriage!
Pro Life Crusader + October 27, 2012 at 12:00 AM
If a person earned and made their own millions and are very wealthy so what! More poor to them! Drop the dream act and deport all illegals and save billions or a Trillion! It works for me!
Mysterious Stranger October 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Color me surprised.
Frenchy October 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Bill Foster supports environmental concerns, which is important to me.
Logansdad October 30, 2012 at 01:04 PM
The Bush tax cuts have been in placed over 8 years. Where are all the jobs the cuts were supposed to create? Let the tax cuts expire on the wealthy.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something