Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate

by Mopeder Posted 2012/04/17 00:06:52

Related Topics: Obama, Senate, Republican, Republicans, America, Reject, Tax, 2011

Read More

158 votes
Read all 532 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.	87 votes	55%
	The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.	71 votes	45%

+19

Add a comment above

Willl 2012/04/17 01:08:08

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+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.
>> See Replies

More polls by Mopeder

Timetraveler 2012/04/17 14:22:52

I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.

+2
this was simply an Obama tactic to get votes. just like he will lower fuel prices in November to get the vote. it's a cat and mouse game they play. Instead of doing the job they were hired for. to effectively spend the money for the betterment of the people and to govern for the protection of the masses. it's sad that the origional agenda of this country has only lasted 236 years! hardly four generations!

reply
gr8punkin 2012/04/17 13:44:24

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+2
Poor choices on answers, but at least you're consistent.
The buffett rule would have hurt the middle class more than the "rich" who would just take their money and place it in safe havens until this level of taxation is over. During the interim there would be a major reduction in investment causing greater job loss and even more inflation.

reply
Cleaver62 to gr8punkin 2012/04/17 19:39:59

So, using your logic, when Bush cut taxes, jobs should have been created everywhere. But where are the jobs?

reply
gr8punkin to Cleaver62 2012/04/17 19:49:13

+1
Ask Frank and Dodd their housing bubble and credit collapse killed them off, but between 2003 and 2007 tax rates were low, unemployment was low, and government revenue was high. Interestingly when cap gains taxes are reduced the revenue generated by those taxes increases, I think it's safe to say that we are towards the lower end of that scale right now. But the inverse is true that raising those taxes would only reduce revenue.
http://winteryknight.wordpres...

reply
Cleaver62 to gr8punkin 2012/04/17 19:58:34

Why did everything get better when Clinton raised taxes, over Newts threats that the US was going to go into a depression. He was able to balance the budget and had a surplus. There wer lots of jobs and everything was good. As soon as Bush cut taxes... all hell broke lose and the economy went into the toilet. When business are not reinvesting in themselves and instead speculating in the market with their money creating a bubble. Bubbles are a result of tax cuts. When taxes are high, profits are pumped back into business.

reply
gr8punkin to Cleaver62 2012/04/17 20:29:06

First of all I would hope that you are aware that the "surplus" Clinton is a myth, and he never ran a surplus.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/ar...
Second Clinton was handed an economy that was growing while Bush was handed one that was shrinking, and yet Bush still had lower unemployment numbers and that didn't change until after the Pelosi led congress took the reins.
http://money.usnews.com/money...

I don't want to make it look like I'm saying the key to low unemployment is low taxes and nothing else, but I will say that it is one of the fundamentals and historical data does support what I'm saying.

reply
Cleaver62 to gr8punkin 2012/04/18 00:29:08

Your source for Clinton not running a surplus is a far right wing rag that has no credibility. Right wingers don't want to give Clinton any credit because a) he was a Democrat not a Republican and b) because he did it through raising taxes. I will put my faith in the facts and what I know to be true.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008...

reply
gr8punkin to Cleaver62 2012/04/18 13:25:03

Wow!, you call my source questionable and then produce factcheck.org as a credible source. Never mind that factcheck.org has been proven to use faked numbers, and if you were willing to read the link that I posted you would see that the fudged numbers you praise are taken into consideration. It's particularly enlightening when read the two articles back to back.

reply
Hawkeye 2012/04/17 13:36:42

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+2
AMAZING.. A Democrat Administration FULL of Democrat Tax Cheats wants to pass a Tax Hike on people who INVEST in America and the bill is named after yet ANOTHER Democrat Tax Cheat..

And Democrats are pointing fingers at Republicans.. WHERE’S all this talk about investing in America to IMPROVE the Economy ??? At LEAST,, Unlike Obama’s investments made with OUR Tax Dollars,, the investments that this bill will harm the MOST are those ACTUALLY making money and NOT going Bankrupt.. THAT’S why they’re being PENALIZED..

THIS will effect ALL investments.. ALL of them.. INCLUDING those of the Average American’s 401s that DEPEND on investments for Revenue..

And in the end.. The TOTAL amount of revenue gained from this attack on Success will NOT even pay for ONE day of Obama’s Spending..

reply
Cleaver62 to Hawkeye 2012/04/17 19:44:52

Since the US has become a 3rd World Country where we are the #1 exporter or raw material and the #1 importer of finished goods, I would say that your wealthy investors, even with the lowest tax rate in history, is investing in other countries instead of America. Maybe if their taxes were raised a little they would have to reinvest a little more of that money into their businesses over here instead of taking their profits and putting them in off shore accounts or investing in the stock market.

I wonder if it might have paid for one day of Bush spending? After all, he got us where we are today.

reply
Hawkeye to Cleaver62 2012/04/17 20:49:00

+1
SURE he did.. Obama spends more in three years then Bush spent in his entire 8 and YOU say Bush got us here..

How about THIS.. America QUITS driving Jobs and companies overseas by lowering the highest Corporate Tax rates in the world and maybe,, just MAYBE,, the wealthy will HAVE companies here in AMerica to invest in..

reply
Cleaver62 to Hawkeye 2012/04/18 00:34:37

Another Right wing lie. Fact is the effective US tax rate is lower than most other developed nations. Sometimes you have to get the facts instead of FOX lies.

http://thinkprogress.org/econ...

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/Pub...

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/201...

reply
Hawkeye to Cleaver62 2012/04/18 00:41:29

+1
WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - The United States will hold the dubious distinction starting on Sunday of having the developed world's highest corporate tax rate after Japan's drops to 38.01 percent, setting the stage for much political posturing but probably little tax reform.

Japan and the United States have been tied for the top combined, statutory corporate rate, with levies of 39.5 percent and 39.2 percent, respectively. These rates include central government, regional and local taxes.

Japan's reduction , prompted by years of pressure from Japanese politicians hoping to spur economic growth, will give that country the world's second-highest rate.

It's NOT FOX NEWS but it COULD be.. It's the TRUTH.. What it ISN'T is the twisted and manipulated info that YOU present..

reply
SW 2012/04/17 13:32:58

I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.

+3
The rich are taxed lower than they have been in 40 years. Lower under Obama than Reagan. They didnt create jobs. Period. We tried the Bush tax cuts and it didnt work. But Republicans insist more of the same thing will get a different result. How many stock market crashes recessions and years of record job loss will it take before people catch on and stop voting for Republicans?

reply
Hawkeye to SW 2012/04/17 13:59:28

+2
47% of America pays NO Federal Income Tax at ALL and many of them recieve benefits at the end of the year in Tax Credits..

And don't bring up the subject of Sales Taxes.. APPLES and ORANGES..

reply
Cleaver62 to Hawkeye 2012/04/17 19:49:34

Again, every working American pays Federal tax deducted each week out of their pay checks. They pay payroll tax, SSI tax, and medicare tax. They also pay gasoline tax, and sales tax on everything they buy. So when you add it all up, working class Americans are taxed on 100% of their income since they spend just about every penny just to survive. Sure, I got a tax refund, but I still didn't get back even half of what I paid.

reply
SJG 2012/04/17 13:23:19

I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.

+3
When a person earning over a million dollars a year, which they are entitled to do, pays 10% tax and the truck driver pays 27% tax, there may be a reason to expect more!

reply
Monolith 2012/04/17 13:15:20

I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.

+5

reply
bob to Monolith 2012/04/17 16:12:27

very true

reply
shadow76 2012/04/17 13:01:40

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+1
Everybody is taxed too much!

reply
Tuna 2012/04/17 12:25:52

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+1
That tax will not help you ONE BIT; it will raise one day's Obama deficit spending. O knows this "but it is fair".

reply
Hawkeye to Tuna 2012/04/17 14:28:20

This is ALL Image over Substance.. WHY is it that the American People aren't asking why the GOVERNMENT deserves to Tax and Spend the way it does instead of PENALIZING Americans who EARN the Money they get??

THIS is AMERICA people.. The DEFAULT does s NOT go to the Government.. It is a Government OF the People,, BY the People and FOR the People..

NOT the other way around..

reply
Tuna to Hawkeye 2012/04/17 18:02:00

OF, FOR, and BY you only get from one candidate, Ron Paul. The default has gone to government since the day Ronald Reagan left office.; Bush 41 swore it.

reply
Cleaver62 to Tuna 2012/04/17 19:51:13

How much was GWB spending per day while he was in office. He doubled the debt before he left office?

reply
Tuna to Cleaver62 2012/04/17 20:05:35

Are you cereal? Obama spent MORE in 3 years than Bush did in 8; yeah Bush was bad enough but this is even worse than Carter; bought groceries lately? gasoline? how about any type of auto parts like a battery? We didn't have runaway inflation with Bush

reply
Cat 1017 2012/04/17 11:59:03

I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.

+3
Is anyone surprised?...I'm not...

reply
kmay 2012/04/17 11:41:26

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+2
Report:
Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Democrats are hypocrits!

reply
Tuna to kmay 2012/04/17 12:26:46

I read $2 billion total that he is contesting since 2001; Buffet rule LOL !!!!

reply
kmay to Tuna 2012/04/17 18:40:07

+1
I'm sure it's even more!

reply
Tuna to kmay 2012/04/17 18:53:37

+1
Buffet also said there needs to be MASSIVE spending cuts so he's not on board with the Buffet rule at all; why did O leave that out??

reply
Cleaver62 to Tuna 2012/04/17 19:53:49

I thought it was on their personal income. That is a business. When is the last time GE or an oil company paid their fair share. Hell, Romney is still counting his money so he has asked for an extension.

reply
Tuna to Cleaver62 2012/04/17 20:08:39

Buffet's income is from investments; he already paid taxes on that money when he earned it. Oh here comes that fair share crap; that wouldn't benefit you at all or me or any other. Do you think Obama is going to give you some of that tax? He's gonna spend it and we will be right back where we are now only the rich will be pissed off and make us pay for the new taxes.

reply
Cleaver62 to Tuna 2012/04/18 00:41:29

How can someone have already paid taxes on money they haven't made yet? Profit on investment should be taxed as income. Because it is income. If I win the lottery, it is taxed at about 50%. But I invested a dollar or 5 dollars that I was already taxed on when I made it at work. Why should I be taxed again?

reply
Path60 2012/04/17 11:01:03

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

+1
If you would get your ignorant ill-informed head out of you A_ _ and run the numbers you would realize the "Buffet Rule" is nothing but smoke and mirrors and will do nothing for the economy. Quit being so damn ignorant and buying into the election rhetoric and class warfare of Obama and company, Buffet makes the majority of his money off of capital gains so therefore pays a different tax rate there is no excuse for your continued ignorance of the real facts

reply
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/04/17 10:43:35

The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.

That is a good thing.

reply
Builder 2012/04/17 10:22:26

I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.

+6
Is anyone really surprised? They do it all the time. The republican are always voting against the people!

reply
Lady Wh... to Builder 2012/04/17 12:24:18

+2
agreed

reply
voice_m... to Builder 2012/04/17 16:58:42

tell me how does increased taxes help people

reply
Builder to voice_m... 2012/04/23 04:42:39

You are assuming that taxes will go up because? Oh I know the Dems always raise taxes. Right?

reply
voice_m... to Builder 2012/04/23 13:59:03

libby the buffet rule is a tax increase.

reply