Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate

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 !!

"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.

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!