Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’ - Page 14

Suudy · #**196** Apr 16, '12, 3:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pork Roll

The church does indeed teach that wealth should be distributed justly.

And as Michael Medved (crediting a caller) mentioned: There is a difference between fairness and justice.

Notice that Pr. Obama is calling for fairness, not justice.

**gilliam** · #**197** Apr 16, '12, 3:41 pm

The "Buffett Rule" is very popular. My guess is that it will pass into law this spring

tqualey · #**198** Apr 16, '12, 3:55 pm

Hi, Gilliam,

Well, that is what makes for a horse race - I think the House will kill it very quickly.

God bless

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

The "Buffett Rule" is very popular. My guess is that it will pass into law this spring

**gilliam** · #**199** Apr 16, '12, 4:18 pm

Breaking: Senate vote on Buffett Rule fails

Senate Republicans on Monday blocked President Barack Obama's "Buffett Rule" legislation, which would have put a 30-percent minimum tax on millionaires, in a debate that is likely to resonate through the November elections.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83F1AC20120416

**gilliam** · #**200** Apr 16, '12, 4:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tqualey

Hi, Gilliam,

Well, that is what makes for a horse race - I think the House will kill it very quickly.

God bless

Didn't make it to the House. Now the GOP will get hammered that it is not the party of "fairness." and the rich man's party with the rich man leading the way... and all that sort of thing. We will see if the populism spin will be enough to move Obama's poll numbers amongst likely voters. (really the ones who would matter here would be the Independents)

Luigi Daniele · #**201** Apr 16, '12, 4:30 pm

They (or someone) has already paid taxes on the capital gains money once. Why should they be double taxed?

Mickey Finn · #**202** Apr 16, '12, 4:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComputerGeek25

I disagree with your analysis. Government should have not repealed Glass Steagel, no matter what the lobbyists wanted.

We are in agreement.

**gilliam** · #**203** Apr 16, '12, 4:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luigi Daniele

They (or someone) has already paid taxes on the capital gains money once. Why should they be double taxed?

Waaaayyyy too complicated for most people to grasp in a sound byte.

LisaA · #**204** Apr 16, '12, 4:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

Didn't make it to the House. Now the GOP will get hammered that it is not the party of "fairness." and the rich man's party with the rich man leading the way... and all that sort of thing. We will see if the populism spin will be enough to move Obama's poll numbers amongst likely voters. (really the ones who would matter here would be the Independents)

I think all they need to do is stay on message. What did Obama plan to do with these funds? He was talking about more "green energy" and other ill advised programs. They need to point out that the reason Democrats want to raise taxes is to continue down the path of bloated government spending, more nanny state largesse and crony capitalism.

Why would we trust Obama with MORE tax dollars? He hasn't done well with what he already received (borrowed from China!).

I don't think the American people will be as easily fooled this time. We've had three years of misery under this president. Why would anyone want four more?

Lisa

Suudy · #**205** Apr 16, '12, 4:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilliam

Breaking: Senate vote on Buffett Rule fails

Senate Republicans on Monday blocked President Barack Obama's "Buffett Rule" legislation, which would have put a 30-percent minimum tax on millionaires, in a debate that is likely to resonate through the November elections.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83F1AC20120416

Perhaps somebody can explain how this debate has even began in the Senate. As Art. 1, Sec. 7 says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Now, this 30% rule, isn't it "for raising Revenue"? Thus, shouldn't it originate in the House? Or is this argued as an amendment to existing legislation (i.e. this is an existing law, and the Senate is only proposing an amendment)?

Mickey Finn · #**206** Apr 16, '12, 4:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComputerGeek25

Ad Hominem. Many people here do not watch Faux News. In fact, many of us get our news from a variety of left leaning sources.

I was talking to LisaA.

**gilliam** · #**207** Apr 16, '12, 4:33 pm

We will see what happens. Romney and Obama are both very disciplined candidates.

One thing Obama has going for him that Romney doesn't have is that in the last 4 years he has convinced the American public that is his personally likable.

Mickey Finn · #**208** Apr 16, '12, 4:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Okay. That didn't really answer the question in a substantive manner though.

Sure it did. There is no reason to have a top 1%. Unless you shear them from time to time.

ATB

**gilliam** · #**209** Apr 16, '12, 4:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn

Sure it did. There is no reason to have a top 1%. Unless you shear them from time to time.

ATB

LisaA · #**210** Apr 16, '12, 4:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suudy

Perhaps somebody can explain how this debate has even began in the Senate. As Art. 1, Sec. 7 says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Now, this 30% rule, isn't it "for raising Revenue"? Thus, shouldn't it originate in the House? Or is this argued as an amendment to existing legislation (i.e. this is an existing law, and the Senate is only proposing an amendment)?

Because it never would have gotten past John Boehner or Eric Cantor in the House. Another way of circumventing the Constitution. Harry Reid is great at non-compliance. Note how he refuses to bring up legislation passed by the House, refuses to prepare a budget, pines for his pomegranate trees back home. Definitely not one of the shining stars in Washington is he?

Lisa