Quantcast

Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate

Mopvyzo 2012/04/17 00:06:52
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Read More: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republi...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Willl 2012/04/17 01:08:08
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    Willl
    +13
    I guess Republican voted against legal crony capitalism or corruption, which is rampant in socialism.
    How much Buffett owns the IRS?
    How many millionaires want to be taxed more? 30? 50? Out of that number, how many made millions on the government contracts?
    Get a grip people. How come some millionaires are better than others?
    Soros – a good guy. Romney – a bad guy. Both guys make their money the same way. Investing.
    Soros gives 10% for political causes. Romney gives 10% to charity.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Builder voice_m... 2012/04/23 19:43:20
    Builder
    Yes, on those who doesn't pay a fair share of taxes. I happen to agree with it. You don't! Please don't talk about those who doesn't pay any taxes. If they could the govt. would find a way to get it out of them!
  • voice_m... Builder 2012/04/23 19:53:22
    voice_matters
    liby why are they not allowed to pay taxes. oh yes you are not intersted in everyone paying their fair share you just want those who ahve invested in wallstreet to pay more in taxes.
  • tdterry1999 2012/04/17 10:15:50
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    tdterry1999
    +1
    51-45
    Senate Republicans block ‘Buffett Rule’ bill
    By Eric W. Dolan
    Monday, April 16, 2012 19:27 EDT -- The Raw Story


    The Republicans not only blocked it, they blocked it Big Time !!

    All Democrats voted YES except for 1 no-vote.
    One Independent was a no-vote also (Lieberman from CT)

    All Republicans voted NO except for 2 no-votes.

    Vote Counts:
    YEAs 51
    NAYs 45
    Not Voting 4

    A CNN poll had a majority of people in favor.

    Warren Buffet must be heart broken !!



    Republicans in the Senate on Monday blocked legislation that would require those making more than $1 million per year to pay at least 30 percent in federal income taxes.

    Democrats fell nine votes short of the 60 votes needed to advance the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, which would have enacted the so-called “Buffett Rule” into law.




    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) described the legislation, which had been touted by President Obama for the past several months, as nothing more than a “political gimmick.”

    “The problem is, we’ve got a President who seems more interested in pitting people against each other than he is in actually doing what it takes to face these challenges head on and to solve them in a bipartisan manner,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “And if anybody had any do...










    51-45
    Senate Republicans block ‘Buffett Rule’ bill
    By Eric W. Dolan
    Monday, April 16, 2012 19:27 EDT -- The Raw Story


    The Republicans not only blocked it, they blocked it Big Time !!

    All Democrats voted YES except for 1 no-vote.
    One Independent was a no-vote also (Lieberman from CT)

    All Republicans voted NO except for 2 no-votes.

    Vote Counts:
    YEAs 51
    NAYs 45
    Not Voting 4

    A CNN poll had a majority of people in favor.

    Warren Buffet must be heart broken !!



    Republicans in the Senate on Monday blocked legislation that would require those making more than $1 million per year to pay at least 30 percent in federal income taxes.

    Democrats fell nine votes short of the 60 votes needed to advance the Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, which would have enacted the so-called “Buffett Rule” into law.




    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) described the legislation, which had been touted by President Obama for the past several months, as nothing more than a “political gimmick.”

    “The problem is, we’ve got a President who seems more interested in pitting people against each other than he is in actually doing what it takes to face these challenges head on and to solve them in a bipartisan manner,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “And if anybody had any doubt about that, the President’s relentless focus on this so-called Buffett tax over the past few weeks should have dispelled it.”




    What I wonder is why the past Congresses did not take this issue to heart.

    They may have stood a better chance with the 111th Congress (2009/2010) and even the 110th (2007/2008).

    The 111th Congress Democrats had control of all the committees in both chambers.

    I guess they had more important things to do ..... like give away all the money !!
    (more)
  • Monolith tdterry... 2012/04/17 13:13:13
    Monolith
    What is this BS. Only 51 votes are needed. Remember when Dick Cheney cast the 51st vote to decide legislation - F*ck this 60 noise!!!!!
  • tdterry... Monolith 2012/04/17 19:16:44
    tdterry1999
    Your funny
  • Flea 2012/04/17 09:33:18
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    Flea
    +6
    In the immortal words of Vith Pankas: " Those who would destroy each other in the name of political systems are greedy, lustful men. Their power depends on the cooperation of many people. If you deny them your energy, they are powerless."
  • voice_m... Flea 2012/04/17 16:59:36
    voice_matters
    sad to see this issue is too hard for you to discuss
  • Flea voice_m... 2012/04/18 00:50:21
    Flea
    You want to discuss with me? Discuss. Air your grievances.
  • voice_m... Flea 2012/04/18 13:36:59
    voice_matters
    posted on this thread already. when you wish to discuss this issue feel free to comment on the issue
  • 2sly 2012/04/17 09:07:01
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    2sly
    +2
    The Buffet rule is about the most ignorant legislature to come around. So Obama gains by a few billion. It won't even cover what he spends in a couple of months. Hopefully whoever beats that lame ass Obama will reverse everything Obama has forced into Law without our consent.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2012/04/17 09:05:39
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    Lady Whitewolf
    +5
    Heard that just within the last past half-hour. KNEW that was coming.

    And people WANT the republicans back in charge? Gimme a break.
  • kmay Lady Wh... 2012/04/17 11:44:36
    kmay
    +2
    Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    1 BILLION IN BACK TAXEX!!!!
  • voice_m... Lady Wh... 2012/04/17 17:01:54
    voice_matters
    why would i want increased taxes. so far not a single lib has show that the buffet rule would bring in enough money cover the obama spending of today. not a single lib showed why i shold ever support an increase in capital gains taxes. if people are not interested in investing in business the business will move to somewhere where they can survive
  • Uranos7 2012/04/17 08:29:29
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    Uranos7
    +1
    It was a practically worthless gesture that would not pay for a single one of Obamas spending bills. The Buffet tax at 5 billion a year plus the 38 billion budget cut would not have paid the 60 billion in foreign aid he sent Kenya this year.
    allowance
  • Builder Uranos7 2012/04/17 10:36:22
    Builder
    +4
    It would require that everyone pay a fair share so what do you have against fairness? It is not a worthless gesture, it make the little guy feel like he or she isn't getting screwed by the republican and their masters' big business! However a piece of crap like yourself probably believe that the poor and middle class should shoulder the burden for everyone else in this country like the Ryan bill state ask! I'm not sure just what kind of American you are but one I wouldn't like to know!
  • Hawkeye Builder 2012/04/17 12:19:09
    Hawkeye
    +1
    It was NOT a gesture of everybody paying their "Fair Share".. It said NOTHING of the 47% of Americans that pay NO Federal Income Taxes.. SOME of whom recieve tax creits..

    And DON'T bring up that BS about them paying Sales tax.. EVERYBODY pays Sales Taxes and THIS has nothing to DO with the INCOME Tax rate....
  • Lady Wh... Builder 2012/04/17 12:25:08
    Lady Whitewolf
    +1
    BRAVO!
  • Uranos7 Builder 2012/04/17 18:27:14
    Uranos7
    You and Obama need to do some research and learn about the 'Laffer Curve'.
    Baisically it shows how increasing taxes does not always increase revenue and can actually have the opposite effect.
    http://danieljmitchell.wordpr...
    You see the rich did not get rich by working 40 housr a week 8 hours a day. They did it by investing thier time and money where they get the most gain for the least effort. So an increase in income tax means they would simply switch to foriegn investment strategy for the bulk of thier income and thus pay less taxes than they do now even. At the same time pulling more capital out of the USA.
    Oh BTW I am one of the poor if you bothered to look at my profile you would see that I am one of the millions of unemployed thanks to Obama and his failed policies.
    http://images.sodahead.com/pr...
  • Builder Uranos7 2012/04/23 05:01:56
    Builder
    I am sorry to hear that you are unemployed. I employ over 300 people but can't hire everyone. So you are telling me that the republican has more to offer someone like you than the Dems. When Romney is telling you he support the Ryan plan which put the burden on those who can't afford it and give it to those who can. When they continue to spread fear like SS is an entitlement program when I have been paying into it since I was 19 and now I'm 78! They want to take food stamps away or reduce it to a point where many would go hungry even with them. I mean I could go on but is that really where you are considering your position isn't that much different than those less off than you? I will do just fine no matter who get into office but being a good person (I won't get into religion) I don't like the thought of children going hungry! The republican have come off as being heartless in their approach to many things. They are beholding to big business and seem to say to hell to everyone else!
  • Uranos7 Builder 2012/04/23 05:45:32
    Uranos7
    "They want to take food stamps away or reduce it to a point where many would go hungry even with them. "
    The average recepient will be cut $27 in food and $67 in income hardly a big enough difference to cause people to starve.
    "When they continue to spread fear like SS is an entitlement program "
    They are not talking about getting rid of it but changing it to the same model used by congress wich is more like a 401k, where the money you pay is invesed in the stock market to increase return making it a personel account.
    The democrats are the ones using 'scare tactics' to get a 'knee jek' reaction from voters. Obama has spent more and raised the debt more in one term than any president since WW2. If we do not pay that down the government will cease to function and go into default like Greece and others are in danger of atm.

    Ryan plan:
    Medicare:
    Instead of the government reimbursing doctors and hospitals for certain medical services, seniors would purchase a private health care plan among numerous options on an exchange. The government would then pay the private insurer in the form of a subsidy up to a specified amount.
    Medicaid:
    House Republicans would overhaul Medicaid by changing the way the federal government finances the program. Today, it is a matching program which means if a sta...





    "They want to take food stamps away or reduce it to a point where many would go hungry even with them. "
    The average recepient will be cut $27 in food and $67 in income hardly a big enough difference to cause people to starve.
    "When they continue to spread fear like SS is an entitlement program "
    They are not talking about getting rid of it but changing it to the same model used by congress wich is more like a 401k, where the money you pay is invesed in the stock market to increase return making it a personel account.
    The democrats are the ones using 'scare tactics' to get a 'knee jek' reaction from voters. Obama has spent more and raised the debt more in one term than any president since WW2. If we do not pay that down the government will cease to function and go into default like Greece and others are in danger of atm.

    Ryan plan:
    Medicare:
    Instead of the government reimbursing doctors and hospitals for certain medical services, seniors would purchase a private health care plan among numerous options on an exchange. The government would then pay the private insurer in the form of a subsidy up to a specified amount.
    Medicaid:
    House Republicans would overhaul Medicaid by changing the way the federal government finances the program. Today, it is a matching program which means if a state adds more Medicaid recipients to the rolls in the case of a recession, the federal government helps with that cost by matching a certain percentage.
    The GOP plan would change the program by block granting it - which means giving a set number of funds to the states. Proponents of this plan say it will give governors the flexibility to administer the Medicaid program as they see fit while giving the federal government some control over the cost
    Tax Reform:
    The "Path to Prosperity" does outline a plan to lower the highest individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent and to make up for that revenue by closing tax loopholes, eliminating special carve outs and tax credits. They also argue that allowing individuals and businesses to keep more money will help grow the economy at a faster rate. But the report does not get into specific tax credits and carve outs that would be eliminated other than making clear some energy and agricultural subsidies would be eliminated.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-5...

    So the Republicans are not taking anything away but giving the system an overhaul. Most of these programs are still using the same rules and models of 40 years ago or moe wich is why they are becoming unsustainable. The world and the economy have changed while they continued plodding along doing the same thing.
    (more)
  • 4570GOVT 2012/04/17 06:52:29
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    4570GOVT
    +4
    The BUFFET RULE is a " Gimick " and would do NOTHING to solve our problems ! Obama himself said so . It would be a drop of water in an ocean of debt ! You can look it up . Besides , Warren Buffett does not think it will help anything . What it WILL DO is drive more money out of the USA . THIS IS CLASS WARFARE and just another Obama trick to weaken our economy .
    Obama has gotton Filthy Stinkin' Rich since becoming president !
  • AL 2012/04/17 06:52:12
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    AL
    +4
    How much does Buttett Need to pay the I.R.S. in back taxes again? Because if I'm not mistaken its now in the millions infact!
  • kmay AL 2012/04/17 11:44:53
    kmay
    Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    1 BILLION IN BACK TAXEX!!!!
  • AL kmay 2012/04/17 20:02:31
    AL
    WOW! I thought Obama was going to use Buffet as a good example of a honest tax payer?
  • kmay AL 2012/04/17 20:36:23
    kmay
    He, and his handlers, don't do homework before he opens his mouth.
  • AL kmay 2012/04/17 21:13:10
    AL
    +1
    Seems like Obama didn't do his home work either, when he use that Government waste Solar energy Company as a great example- of our brave new Socialist economy
  • chaoskitty123 2012/04/17 06:28:13
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    MOPEDER... you guys in the Democratic Party have the majority so don't blame the Republicans... go look and see how many of your Democrats voted against this.

    just like Obama voted to give bush everything he wanted during his second term including voting to pass legislation through cloture, his betrayals stopped Democrats from preventing more Bush legislation from being passed.

    You elected a traitor to be President who as a US Senator not only voted to give Bush everything he wanted and got him Democrat votes when Bush didn't have enough Republican support, he voted against leftwing issues endlessly... just check his voting record as a US Senator and then compare it to his record as President. If Bush were still president and Obama were a US Senator... he would have voted with the Republicans to kill the Buffet Rule himself.

    The rich pay a higher percentage of taxes but Socialists play on the ignorance of Liberals so they look at what they have after paying their bills and they can't buy much of anything. But the rich pay all their bills and can do any damn thing they want because they have so much money.

    But it's not just the rich... it's the Upper Middle Class as well because the first attack by Socialists is always against the rich... then they go after the rest. If you...










































    MOPEDER... you guys in the Democratic Party have the majority so don't blame the Republicans... go look and see how many of your Democrats voted against this.

    just like Obama voted to give bush everything he wanted during his second term including voting to pass legislation through cloture, his betrayals stopped Democrats from preventing more Bush legislation from being passed.

    You elected a traitor to be President who as a US Senator not only voted to give Bush everything he wanted and got him Democrat votes when Bush didn't have enough Republican support, he voted against leftwing issues endlessly... just check his voting record as a US Senator and then compare it to his record as President. If Bush were still president and Obama were a US Senator... he would have voted with the Republicans to kill the Buffet Rule himself.

    The rich pay a higher percentage of taxes but Socialists play on the ignorance of Liberals so they look at what they have after paying their bills and they can't buy much of anything. But the rich pay all their bills and can do any damn thing they want because they have so much money.

    But it's not just the rich... it's the Upper Middle Class as well because the first attack by Socialists is always against the rich... then they go after the rest. If you earn between $100,000 to $250,000, you are considered Middle Class. However, Middle Class also includes people earning $35,000 to $50,000.

    The Upper Middle Class live in big three story houses, have several expensive cars, own hundreds of acres of land and when they pay their bills... they too have thousands of dollars left over which grows over time until they too have millions... the lesser rich if you will but rich nonetheless!

    Dude... people like you never research the issues which allows Socialists to manipulate you just like Plutocrats manipulate Republicans.

    But here you are attacking Republicans for voting down an idea from one of the super rich who is currently fighting the IRS over a million dollar tax issue and is regarded as one of the nations biggest skinflints. He has never done anything in his life where he didn't have profit as his sole motivating factor.

    In other words, just because a wealthy man says the rich don't pay enough taxes doesn't mean he's actually trying to represent your cause.

    Clinton used NeoLiberalism as his economic platform. NeoLiberalism is Reaganomics with all the holes patched up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Reagan couldn't patch these holes himself because Democrats united against him... Clinton could because Democrats will support their own candidates doing the things they wouldn't allow the opposition to do. Because NeoLiberalism worked and Clinton shifted away from the left to center / right, he united the majority to support him and Republicans supported raising taxes on the rich... and the rich didn't mind because by working with both parties, Clinton was able to create over 25 million jobs and reduce welfare recipients to their lowest number in 30 years.

    The Buffet rule was just a lie because some wealthy fatcat saw a way to manipulate the left trying to enrich himself.

    Buffet supported Obama for President and has sworn to give away 99% of his wealth. However, Buffet also supported Arnold Schwarzeneggar and his political involvement has always led to disaster because he uses his wealth to buy influence and create legislation or investment deals which backfire and hurt the very political causes he claims to support. While he attacks other wealthy and likes to point out how little he pays in taxes as compared to his employees, he does have the power to pay more in taxes and to pay his employees higher wages to compensate for how much he claims they pay in taxes... he doesn't.
    In regard to tobacco, Buffet said

    Quote
    I'll tell you why I like the cigarette business. It costs a penny to make. Sell it for a dollar. It's addictive. And there's fantastic brand loyalty.
    End Quote

    He is also known as a corporate raider buying up companies that fall into financial difficulty. He is also known for massive layoffs and being duplicitous saying what he needs to say at the moment to increase his wealth. The quote above is an example as he has also said...

    Quote
    Buffett said investments in tobacco are fraught with questions that relate to societal attitudes and those of the present administration. I would not like to have a significant percentage of my net worth invested in tobacco businesses. The economy of the business may be fine, but that doesn't mean it has a bright future.
    End Quote

    Again, he only supports things which can make him wealthier and when society turns on something, he then changes his views to reflect that change. When most Americans supported the tobacco industry, he was all for it... but his view shifted between 1988 when he supported it to 1994 when he turned against it not because tobacco was bad for people... but because it was becoming a bad financial investment.

    Much of Buffets wealth is liquid assets meaning cash whereas many wealthy Americans have their wealth invested... meaning they might be worth $100 million but only have $15 million that's not invested.

    It is a tough call to make as the rich can afford to pay more in taxes and yet, even if they do... it will not fix Washington DC with it's spending habits as it has been estimated that if we used a 33% flat tax on everyone, we wouldn't even reduce the national debt by 2%.

    But the trick is that it's not the rich who oppose a flat tax as many wealthy Americans actually support the idea... but that means everyone pays it and the poor would have to pay so much that they lose out.

    When the rich are forced to pay more taxes in a bad economy, they start slashing pay and jobs... that's why even Democrat Presidents have opposed raising taxes on the rich in a bad economy. But if you fix the economy, then political leaders can raise taxes.

    And one last point... not only did Obama vote to give Bush everything he wanted when Obama was a US Senator... he also supported Bush on taxes and insiders say he only supports the Buffet rule because he knows Republicans will kill it which is good for votes for him.

    Republicans want a flat tax and if Democrats were sincere in wanting "fairness" then they would support it as well because what is more fair than everyone paying the same percentage in taxes???

    Yet, Republicans support a flat tax and Democrats oppose it.

    I chose that the rich can't afford to pay more because your answers were both aimed at gearing support for the Buffet Rule and yet... everyone knew it was going to fail. The only real issue is how many Democrat Senators voted with the Republicans. But just like when Obama was a US Senator stabbing the left in the back... Democrat voters don't seem to care about that when it's the ones who side with Republicans who got this defeated!
    (more)
  • Builder chaoski... 2012/04/17 10:28:47
    Builder
    +1
    God! Are you sick in the head or just stupid? The people making over 1 million a yr (of which I am one can) afford to pay their fair share in taxes. Why shouldn't we? I have done very well in my time, I haven't done as well as Buffett or Gates but better than most. I don't have a problem paying my fair share as long as everyone else does also. It would be fair.
  • mich52 Builder 2012/04/17 12:49:35
  • kmay Builder 2012/04/17 20:37:23
    kmay
    What is fair?
  • AL Builder 2012/04/17 21:17:59
    AL
    So just how many times did you vote Stupid anyway "mich52"?
  • Judge Peter Hill 2012/04/17 06:13:31
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    Judge Peter Hill
    +5
    We don't have a deficit because the rich don't pay enough taxes, we have a deficit because Washington spends too much!
  • Builder Judge P... 2012/04/17 10:37:36
    Builder
    +1
    I have heard that crap before!
  • JanHopkins 2012/04/17 06:04:14
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    JanHopkins
    +3
    I didn't like either of the choices here. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would expect wealthy people to vote themselves out of money. Has congress ever turned down a pay raise for themselves?
  • rootbeer29 2012/04/17 05:54:11
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    rootbeer29
    +2
    If your son were to become successful and wealthy ( the American dream ), would you want him to suffer higher taxes?
  • BabyBear rootbeer29 2012/04/17 10:04:11
    BabyBear
    Lol, when I was making $22k a year going to school I paid more (as a percentage) than I do now, and I'm making almost 7 times what I used to make. The higher tax myth is only valid to the wealthy that do not hire lawyers and CPA's to find every loop hole - I gladly pay $400 to a CPA to find the loops holes that saved me almost $15k in taxes.
  • kmay BabyBear 2012/04/17 20:38:20 (edited)
    kmay
    Close the loopholes and doing tort reform would take care of that. Obama won't do it.
  • Builder rootbeer29 2012/04/17 10:38:25
    Builder
    Yes! He could afford to pay more and it wouldn't hurt his bottom line!
  • banzaibuckaroo 2012/04/17 05:26:00
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    banzaibuckaroo
    +4
    Everyone watch the first two minutes. Everyone has to step up to the plate, and do their part.
    President Reagan's chief budget director said it best, we all have to take one for the team.
  • Uranos7 banzaib... 2012/04/17 08:36:01
    Uranos7
    +1
    That is very true but you will not find Politicians making the hard choices in an election year.
    That is why Reagan and Clinton did it the first year in office so that by the next election progress had been made and they could justify it.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/21 16:46:59

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals