Quantcast

Republicans reject 'Buffett rule' in the Senate

ϟM̈ öp̈vytöϟ 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

  • Teri- O... Pinball... 2012/04/17 03:51:21
    Teri- Oregon
    +3
    sorry don't trust MSM by the way I'm not republican
  • Manuel Teri- O... 2012/04/17 15:22:18
    Manuel
    +1
    easy one...the blue dogs didn't got with it...which are the conservatives....you don't think all the Dixie-crats left the Democrat party...right?
  • Builder Teri- O... 2012/04/23 05:17:02
    Builder
    The house is republican but since you need 60 votes in the senate and there are only 51 Dems they can't get it done. However I think you knew that. You just wanted to put out that half truth didn't you?
  • Manuel 2012/04/17 02:28:46
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    Manuel
    +7
    Republicans reject anything that's good for America...
  • Teri- O... Manuel 2012/04/17 03:28:30
    Teri- Oregon
    +3
    The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?
  • Pinball... Teri- O... 2012/04/17 03:37:52
  • mich52 Teri- O... 2012/04/17 03:43:47
  • wildcat 2012/04/17 02:28:16
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    wildcat
    +3
    Republican care enough about American to let General Motors fail.
  • Teri- O... wildcat 2012/04/17 03:28:38
    Teri- Oregon
    The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?
  • Pinball... Teri- O... 2012/04/17 03:38:02
  • wildcat Teri- O... 2012/04/18 01:33:33
    wildcat
    Are really that stupid? Don't you know that a simple majority doesn't work in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to pass in the Senate. The 51-45 vote left Democrats nine votes short of the 60 they needed to advance the bill.
  • Wizard 2012/04/17 02:14:13
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    Wizard
    +3
    Although surprised., but not unexpected...I would not say they do not care about America...but it just happens to be their version that they care about.
  • Teri- O... Wizard 2012/04/17 03:28:51
    Teri- Oregon
    +1
    The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?
  • Pinball... Teri- O... 2012/04/17 03:38:11
  • Wizard Teri- O... 2012/04/18 01:04:44 (edited)
    Wizard
    +1
    I didn't specify a party. There are 1%'ers on both sides of the aisle. But there are certainly more of them in the GOP, which is irritating the Americans voters more.

    very rich
  • LindaM 2012/04/17 02:12:16
    I'm not surprised. They don't care about America.
    LindaM
    +5
    It figures. Let he rich get richer and the middle class ......well, you know the rest of the story. Sad all around except for the Romney's in the world.
  • Teri- O... LindaM 2012/04/17 03:29:06
    Teri- Oregon
    +1
    The senate is democrat controlled which means they didn't agree with it either. What's your argument now?
  • Pinball... Teri- O... 2012/04/17 03:38:22
  • mich52 Teri- O... 2012/04/17 03:43:07
  • LindaM Teri- O... 2012/04/17 04:17:02
  • DuncanONeil 2012/04/17 02:11:26
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    DuncanONeil
    +2
    The least objectionable choice of the two.
    But it is strictly a political poly for every account to lead with "Republicans Block". Especially since the vote was bipartisan.
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/17 02:22:38
    Heptarch
    +1
    I'm not sure you understand what bipartisan means. The vote was strictly along party lines. Only one Democrat voted against and one Republican for.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/19 02:10:00
    DuncanONeil
    That makes it Bipartisan!

    bi·par·ti·san   [bahy-pahr-tuh-zuhn]
    adjective
    representing, characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions:

    http://dictionary.reference.c...
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/19 02:51:52
    Heptarch
    LOL Um, no. If you have everyone but one on both sides voting as a bloc, that is the OPPOSITE of bipartisan.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/20 00:40:52
    DuncanONeil
    Then you are telling me that the definition of bipartisan is wrong? Or are you just submitting your own definition?

    There is no required number to certify bipartisan. The fact that there is votes on one side from both parties MAKES it bipartisan!
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/20 03:16:08
    Heptarch
    +1
    No, I'm telling you that for an issue to be bipartisan it would need to have roughly equal support from both sides. To have one side voting one way and the other side voting the complete opposite is PARTISAN politics, not BI-partisan.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/21 02:11:32
    DuncanONeil
    As I said before you are determining your own definition of the term "bipartisan". Nothing in the definition has any indication of a necessary quantity in order to be classed as "bipartisan".

    It only "requires"; "characterized by, or including members from two parties or factions:", which in this case occurred.
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/21 03:23:05 (edited)
    Heptarch
    It's not my definition, genius. Look, here's Merriam Webster:

    "specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties"

    Here's the Washington Post Political glossary:

    "Lawmakers from two different political parties working together to pass legislation or to meet a mutual goal."

    What you saw with the bill in question was PARTISAN politics. Meaning that the two parties were ANTAGONISTIC on the bill, not working together.

    For the vote to have been bi-partisan they would either have had to agree and pass the bill together or both disagree and vote it down. That was the exact opposite of what happened. Do you understand now?
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/22 03:15:00
    DuncanONeil
    Answer me this. Is Simpson - Bowles bipartisan?
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/22 03:22:28
    Heptarch
    What was the vote?
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/22 04:16:59
    DuncanONeil
    The question was and is is the Simpson-Bowles Act bipartison. And your answer is what was the vote. Simpson-Bowles was the work of only the two authors. The entire committee, other than those two, wanted nothing to do with it. So the Act was written by ONE Democrat & ONE Republican. According to you this is not bipartison.

    The citations you made on the definition of bipartison do nothing to even weaken my case.
    First; you use the term "specifically" in characterizing the vote as partisan. The fact that members of the opposing party voted with the opposition that is clearly false.

    Second; "marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties". The fact that a member of each opposed party "cooperated" with their opposition, supports bipartisan.

    Third; "Lawmakers from two different political parties working together to pass legislation or to meet a mutual goal." Again members of the opposed parties worked with their opposition to meet a mutual goal. Again supporting the bipartisan nature of the vote!!
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/22 04:24:16
    Heptarch
    "The question was and is is the Simpson-Bowles Act bipartison. And your answer is what was the vote"

    Of course I'm asking about the vote. The vote is all that matters. That's what shows whether a bill has partisan or bi-partisan support.

    "So the Act was written by ONE Democrat & ONE Republican. According to you this is not bipartison."

    I can't claim one way or the other until I see the vote.

    "The fact that members of the opposing party voted with the opposition that is clearly false."

    If a bill vote has every member but one of each party on opposing sides of the vote, that is the very definition of partisan politics.

    "The fact that a member of each opposed party "cooperated" with their opposition, supports bipartisan."

    And you ignore the fact that EVERY OTHER MEMBER of each party voted along strict party lines. Seriously, the fact that you believe this to be bi-partisan would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

    "Again members of the opposed parties worked with their opposition to meet a mutual goal."

    Really? Then why'd they vote almost unanimously AGAINST each other? That's not cooperation, that's antagonism. The polar opposite of bi-partisan.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/23 02:00:32
    DuncanONeil
    "If a bill vote has every member but one of each party on opposing sides of the vote, that is the very definition of partisan politics."
    ..No it is not, it is the very opposite as it has support from the opposition party.

    "And you ignore the fact that EVERY OTHER MEMBER of each party voted along strict party lines."
    ..I, unlike some, ignored nothing. Note that in order to express "strict party lines" requires removing the opposition party votes.

    "Seriously, the fact that you believe this to be bi-partisan would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic."
    ..It meets the definition! Even the ones you presented.

    "Then why'd they vote almost unanimously AGAINST each other? "
    ..Again, it is necessary for you to qualify your statement with "almost".

    Posted by Ezra Klein at 03:56 PM ET, 04/17/2012
    The House recently rejected a version of the Simpson-Bowles plan, 382-38. But Simpson-Bowles is from 2010 where the committee that was supposed to produce this product all rejected Simpson-Bowles.
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/23 03:22:21
    Heptarch
    "No it is not, it is the very opposite as it has support from the opposition party."

    How do you call having every Republican but one voting against something "support"? That's what you're resolutely ignoring here.

    You can't call something "bi-partisan" if one side votes nearly unanimously for it and the other almost unanimously against it. That is partisan politics, which is the opposite of bi-partisan.

    And to answer your question, it appears that Simpson-Bowles was bi-partisan since the vote is so lopsided. I could say for sure if you had provided the party breakdown, but it certainly looks bi-partisan.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/23 04:17:23
    DuncanONeil
    "How do you call having every Republican but one voting against something "support"? That's what you're resolutely ignoring here."
    ..Because the count of votes in favor include more than Demoncrats.

    "And to answer your question, it appears that Simpson-Bowles was bi-partisan since the vote is so lopsided. I could say for sure if you had provided the party breakdown, but it certainly looks bi-partisan."
    ..A vote held two years after the fact. Still haven't found my original reference!
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/23 06:15:29
    Heptarch
    "Because the count of votes in favor include more than Demoncrats. "

    For what vote? If we're still talking about the Buffet Rule vote, you have it backwards. The Democrats were for and the Republicans against. 51-45 was the vote. 50 Dems, 1 Repubc for. 44 Repubs, 1 Dem against.

    BTW, every story I've read so far (five and counting) about that vote calls it "partisan" voting.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/24 00:09:10
    DuncanONeil
    Because reporters get it wrong we have to change the definition?
  • Heptarch DuncanO... 2012/04/24 00:53:43 (edited)
    Heptarch
    Right. So everyone but you is wrong.

    I've wasted enough time on this silliness. Have a good one.
  • DuncanO... Heptarch 2012/04/24 01:32:39
    DuncanONeil
    "So everyone but you is wrong."
    ..Nope! But I generally require evidence to support the alternate claim. Something those with an inclination to lean left routinely seem to be unwilling to do.

    But it is kind of hard to disprove a definition.
  • Adam 2012/04/17 02:08:23
    The rich can't afford to pay more, they are taxed enough.
    Adam
    +4
    I don't agree with either answer. My answer is that fair is paying the same percentage. Not some sliding scale tax system. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is stealing. Let people do with their money what they want to do.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/31 13:49:55

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals