E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Obama sought Wednesday to expand his push for the so-called Buffett Rule by highlighting its support among corporate chieftains and even Republicans.
Flanked by a group of millionaires and their secretaries, Obama hit for another consecutive day on themes of fairness and the need for this rule, which would see million dollar household subjected to a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent.
“Most Americans agree with me, so do most millionaires. One survey found that two-thirds of millionaires support this idea. So do nearly half of all Republicans across America,” Obama said, speaking to an audience of millionaires and their secretaries, intended to personify Warren Buffett’s contention that millionaires should pay at least the same tax rates as their secretaries.
Obama also noted that the concept of closing tax loopholes used by the rich is historically not a strictly liberal idea and that Ronald Reagan -- whom Obama jokingly called a “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior” for his support of the idea – called the loopholes “crazy.”
He mused about changing the rule’s nickname to the “Reagan Rule” if that might encourage more Republicans to support it.
While the president's remarks didn't include the heavy campaign optics of his speech yesterday in Florida on the same topic, the continued push for the rule still comes against a political backdrop. The Obama re-election campaign has used it to highlight Republican front-runner Mitt Romney's immense personal wealth, and they have demanded for a fuller release of Romney's past tax records.
Republicans have called the Buffett Rule a red herring, pointing to the fact that the law, if enacted, would only make a small dent in the deficit. Obama acknowledged that the rule would only raise about $47 billion over 10 years, but, he said, just because it doesn’t singlehandedly close the deficit doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enacted.
"There are others who are saying, well, this is just a gimmick,” he said. “Well, I agree. That’s not all we have to do to close the deficit. But the notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all.”
Leave a Comment:
Kind of ironic it is called the Buffett Rule considering Buffett owes around 1 billion in back taxes.
He is being paid off in so many ways. Stop the pipeline made it necessary to ship oil to refineries on the railroad which is making Buffett millions. Did NBC mention this? ABC, CBS, CNN, Huffington Post- any of them?
If the comments in here are any indication, it would appear that our community organizer's tactics are working as planned. Obama is following the playbook well and he has his army believing that the rich and conservatives are the evil ones, and they're ready to fight for him.
It is his plan of divide and foment hate. And then he so amazingly says that ROmney will bring negativity to the general election. Chicago politics at its best being demonstrated to the world.
It's funny watching republicans scramble for damage control when one of their own (Buffet) actually agrees with Obama......
Buffett is a raving liberal - just like so many billionaires (Stryker, Kaiser, Gates, and so many more.)
See: http://nikitas3.com/1083/why-are-so-many-rich-people-liberals/
Add the Koch brothers to that list...Oh wait....
LOL! Buffet is a registered republican.......(sorry...)
Just because you have an r by your name, does not mean you are a conservitive. Look at John McCain, Boehner just a few examples of republican liberals
Biggest lie being shouted is that the GOP is the party of the rich. This article proves that the super-rich are liberals and you can be certain that they are in that party because they are rewarded. It is the productive rich who make things that tend to be in the GOP - not the indolent rich living off their trust funds. Click o the following for the distinction..
http://nikitas3.com/1083/why-are-so-many-rich-people-liberals/
ROFL! Buffet is a registered republican.......(sorry)
He is a liberal - and that is a fact. I am a registered independent - do I sound like one?
See: http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/buffetts-liberal-causes/
Add George Soros to that list of billionaires that support Obama and the liberals, by the way. Pat Stryker and George Kaiser are also big investors in Obama's Green Corporations that he has subsidized with hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars. He even broke the law and allowed Kaiser to move ahead of taxpayers when his Solyndra Corporation went bankrupt. Watch for Stryker to get the same largesse if/when Abound Corporation goes bankrupt - even with the tax-payer subsidy of so many millions.
LOL! It doesn't matter what you sound like. Buffet is still a registered republican who votes republican........(sorry..)
Lukewarm - I'm surprised that Buffett confides in you as to how he votes. Watermoon speaks the truth, but I question the veracity of your statements.
Lukewarm, did you even look at: http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/buffetts-liberal-causes/
He and George Soros are more liberal than Hillary Clinton - another millionaire liberal. You wish he were liberal but he is not. He backed Obama financially but you claim he didn't vote for him? We can prove that he backed him - can you prove how he voted? I thought that was a secret ballot.
You can add Ted Turner to that lit of liberal billionaires by the way - Soros, Stryker, Kaiser, Buffett, Gates, and the list goes on.
Sorry Watermellon,
Warren Buffett is still a registered republican that votes republican........all your sources can't dispute that fact.......
luke, how do you know how he votes?
People who pre-judge will seek out facts that only support their predetermined position. When presented with FACTS that may disprove what they've already determined in their mind, these facts will be easily dismissed without contemplation.
The easiest way to get Conservatives or Liberals on board or against something is to label it something that's SUPPOSED to be against their beliefs (even if it's not). Labeling is an effective tool in politics. You can sway decisions and opinions by simply naming it, instead of letting it be defined by what it really is.
Both the left and right need to realize this and understand when they've fallen victim to this type of mind control.
Indeed. It is possible to be Pro life, pro choice, and pro contraception at the same time.
No one I have ever met is pro-abortion. I've only met Anti-Choice and Anti-contraceptionists...
Well put. Those with any math skills will agree with Buffet and Obama regardless of political affiliation...
Anyone with common sense and a willingness to listen to BOTH sides can decide on their own truth. What NO ONE can do is be biased and fair at the same time. You look for crap, you will find it. You look for people to be wrong and they will be, they are human. Just know there's always a bigger picture.
I've also never met any theist who quite gets "Atheism"
Having a non belief is not the same as negative belief.
I't like we are in the middle ages, where 0 being a muslim concept is abhorrent to the roman doctrine.
Yeah..I'm an Atheist (I think) and I have friends and family that think I'm just trying to be rebellious. I try to explain that I can't force myself to believe something just because it's told to me. I have a need to to seek PROOF. I have this problem with everything. I can't just take someone's word, I have to have them prove it to me.
Political affiliation is a lot like religious affiliation. If you're raised to believe something, it will be hard to shake that belief. If you are raised to be a conservative, you will associate with those things that you are told conservatives associate with. With Liberals, I believe it's the same thing.
So the Buffet Rule will bring in about $47B over 10 years. You can save $68B in one year by zeroing out the Department of Education...just sayin'...
Cut the waste - THEN come asking for more money - in that order.
Add the Department of Energy - founded under Carter with the goal to stop dependence on foreign oil. Hundreds of billions later and we are worse off than ever. The GSA scandal shows an abuse that we can be certain is rampant throughout that bloated corrupt federal bureaucracy that silly liberals want to give more responsibility. And yet there are no cuts - just some duplicative positions eliminated when the person retires. Gut that beached whale of incompetence and then come ask for more money from productive workers.
A surtax on millionaires might be a more politically palatable method to pay down our debt but it won’t solve our core problems. Americans don’t need another tax, we need tax reform.
There is no doubt that tax fairness must be improved and the way to do that is to rebuild the tax code from scratch using a plan like Bowles-Simpson that leaves no sacred cows untouched. Shared sacrifice is the only way we will be able to simplify the tax code, improve fairness, and spur economic growth. http://bit.ly/noTDPF
And fairness must include the 47% who presently pay nothing - even if it only requires that they pay $100 a year! Get everyone vested and we can stop the corruption, duplication and waste that has federal employees laughing at tax-payers, as we see in those video-tapes by the GSA employees. I assume that NBC, ABC and CBS are showing those? Or is that one more thing that the liberal media moguls have decided that you people should not know?
the so called 47% "who pay nothing" pay a great deal more percentage of income in labor taxes, sales taxes, and other additional regressive taxes, taxes the richest pay a much much smaller percentage of.
A straw man is made of straw, and burns as easy. your argument is full of fluff!
Everyone must pay to get us out from under the burden government put on the people of this country.
Are all of you liberals that dumb,even if Obama gets the 30% for all those making over 1 million dollars for income,it will not affect Buffet he does not take an income check he takes his money from interest retuns,As do ,many of the super rich. Thus Obama must be that dumb to believe raising income taxes will get more money from them.Why not just lower all taxes to 15% for everyone with no deductions for any reason,that would be fair.
Sounds good but NO ONE would ever go for it. a flat tax with no deductions seems to be the fairest thing in the world...but it's already been shot down.. A republican brought it up and was silenced immediately.
Warren Buffett's income was over $46,000,000 last year.........(sorry)
Buffett makes money through capital gains; he does not take a payroll check. That is why he pays 15%. Good luck trying to make a living through Capital Gains, we all wish we were that lucky.
His secretary takes a payroll check she gets taxes at 30%. Flat tax is the answer. Everyone pays the same amount.
What in the world is a 'Raving Liberal'? Watermoon must be a reader of The Blaze....
So it is class warfare/envy wealth re-distribution when the Democrats ask the wealthy to pay higher than 15% in taxes.
Ryan's plan preserves the Bush tax cuts plus cuts wealthy taxpayers taxes even more which over ten years creates an additional 4 trillion dollar hole to be paid for by cuts to programs used to support primarily poor and middle class tax payers. And yes I included the poor as tax payers. The fact is that anyone who buys anything pays taxes in one form or another. the Ryan plan closes loopholes in the tax code but can't name one single loophole he would close and unless and until he does my bet is none.. To me that sounds an awful lot like wealth re-distribution.
The truth is that class warfare has been waged since Reagen's voo do, trickle down, supply side economics however it has been waged against the poor and middle class. Where is all the great stuff Reagen said we would get if we gave the rich more? Yes the rich got dramatically richer over the last 30 years or so but the rest either lost ground or remained pretty much where they were.
Now on to the war on women that the republicans are pissing and moaning about. Most reasonable people who see all the laws passed by republican controlled state legislatures aimed at restricting a woman's right to choice, limiting access to contraceptives and even repealing equal pay for women legislation tend to see things differently. The big hue and cry that swept the republicans into the U.S. house and State legislatures was "where are the jobs?" Once in office all that they passed were laws aimed at disenfranchising voter rights, union rights and women's rights, along with a side of tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
Fixing the deficit problem has to be done with a balanced approach. Where have I heard that before? You can't tax your way out of it anymore than you can cut your way out of it. Here are some simple steps that would go a long way to solve the deficit problem.
1. End all Bush tax cuts and tax all sources of income as income. You want flat tax fine, everything at 30%.
2. Cut military budget by at least 40%. Stop being world's policeman and close majority of the 173 bases around the world. Stop buying crap that even the military doesn't want (John Boner and others).
3. Allow all federal programs to participate in negotiated drug prices like the Veterans Administration does now.
4. End giveways to oil companys, corporations and wall street.
5. End the days of professional politicians. No lifetime retirement benefits, lifetime free insurance etc...There was a time in this country when serving in congress was seen as a duty and when that duty was done you went back to whatever profession you had or back to your farm to earn your living.
6. Aggressive pursuit of waste fraud and abuse at all levels of government.
Fixing Social Security is even easier. Just raise or eliminate the current cap on wages above $108,000.00.
another marxist solution- more govt less freedom
So where is Obama's plan to reduce the deficit? This Buffett rule won't reduce it and in fact will not pay the interest on it for a month. Good political soundbite though. Meanwhile he continues to drive the country into economic ruin using the same tactics that Greece has shown to be disastrous..
The problem aren't in the programs themselves but how they are mismanaged after the public takes their eyes off them. Programs set up today should be revisited at least every 5 years to see if they are effective. This is where the gov't goes wrong.
Just like the Constitution (believe it or not) was actually SUPPOSED to be revisited every 20 years to account for changes in the times (Internet, TV, Radio,etc.), BUT it's deemed un-american to suggest such a thing.
Big Gov't isn't bad. BAD gov't is bad!
Again, labeling...
Right back at you.......What's Romney's plan? Create another 4 trillion dollar hole to add to the one the bush tax cuts and two unfunded wars dug?
Obama's speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Today, I heard him say on the radio that only those making a million or more would see higher taxes. In the same breath, he then said, those who make less than $250,00 a year will not see a tax increase. I make more than $250K a year, and I'm not a millionare. So, are my taxes going up or not? He needs to address that $750,000 discrepency.
His plan taxes millionaires who make over a million in income - most of whom are small business owners and not the indolent millionaires that liberals hate so. He also plans to raise the capital gains tax on those making over $200,000 - thus taking away incentive for them to invest in the economy. If they guess wrong, they lose. If they guess right, the feds will take the profits. So why invest at all.
It is the stuff of Karl Marx. George Soros hates capitalism, George Soros invests in Obama, Obama pulls the rug out of the private sector. Obama throws a few crumbs to the plebeians and they vote him in for 4 more years.
Paul,
Obama thinks you should not make more than 250,000 a year. If he can tax you enough, he can give some of your money to your neighbor to make it fair.
Buffet owes the federal govt over 1 billion dollars. the only reason he's standing with osama is because he's trying to get out of paying them. Maybe we should get that noted lib Charlie Rangel to pay his too. These guy's get there income from capital gains so an income tax hike won't hurt them. Read up libs, you might learn something
All I can say is "Gee, wouldn't I like a chance to sit in a room, face-to-face with my President, and let me discuss whether or not my taxes should be raised"!
Screw this S@#&%!!! TAX them, don't discuss it with them! I don't get that choice! I don't get a lot of choices. Why should these Privileged Folks even get to debate this?!
Because the privileged folks are the ones who pay for politicians' campaigns?
Seriously, who, as a US citizen dose not want better for our country as a whole?
What are you willing to pay for a better country?
If you answer "nothing" then you are part of the problem.
We all should pay, we need roads (roman thing) , we need to care for the lesser (that's a christian thing), the infirm (ignore sparta)
Or... Should we all pay for the greater good?
It seems greed is good has taken hold of of us all, and we all are being less united, less common good, less what made us powerful when we started.
What ever happened to the common welfare of all of us? Why are we so backstabbing greedy that we would let our own neighbors die in poverty...
Seriously, what is wrong with people these days where we can't all get together and take care of each other (yeah, that's socialism, it happens in churches and small communities every day)
What good does it to pay more if the government is only going to spend more? When did we have atrillion dollar deficits in the past. George Bush got buy running the White House on 25 billio/year. In comes obama 9 and entourage) and immediately he needs another 25 billion to doa worse job than Bs.
Justify the spending before you try and justify the taxes.
Want to know why I am really laughing? Because the "Buffet Rule" will have no impact on Warren Buffet or any of he other millionaires. Raise income taxes 100 percent and they still will not pay a dime extra. They do not draw a salary.
So keep up your populist clap trap and worship of the new Fuhrer. It means nothing in the long run.
Obama's proud Frank-Dodd Bil is as woth;less as al three of them. Banks are once again offering sub-prime loans.
Heil obama! Heil obama.
thinking citizen
1. We pay fuel taxes which are supposed to maintain our roads
As to taking care of the needy:
Once again we have the advocacy of secular humanism rather than the teachings of Jesus as the route that Christians should somehow prefer. Liberals are reflecting the lie of "Liberation Theology" This is a humanist/socialist view of Christianity and is of the spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Helping the needy for Christians must come from the heart and be done as unto Jesus Himself (Matthew 25, Isaiah 58, and others). Ms Posner and liberals like Obama advocate something very UNCHRISTIAN which is socialism by wanting it to be done by compulsion and theft. It amounts to asking Christians to sin by putting our trust and transferring glory to man/government instead of God. Christians are required out of love that has been poured into our hearts to demonstrate Christ's love to others and in so doing, glorify God. The ONLY way that this can be done through government is in a theocracy, and NO ONE wants to see that.
'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' Matthew 25:40
Having the govt seize our property and redistributing it to glorify man/govt is a sin and contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
and in 2 Corinthians 9:6-15
But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
" He has dispersed abroad,
He has given to the poor;
His righteousness endures forever."
10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!
Isaiah 58:6-9
This is the kind of fasting I have chosen:
Loosen the chains of wickedness,
untie the straps of the yoke, let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke.
7Share your food with the hungry, take the poor and homeless into your house,
and cover them with clothes when you see them naked.
Don't refuse to help your relatives.
8Then your light will break through like the dawn, and you will heal quickly.
Your righteousness will go ahead of you, and the glory of the Lord will guard you from behind.
9Then you will call, and the Lord will answer.
You will cry for help, and he will say, "Here I am!"
Whats bad is they have politicians who tell them (since they do not find out on their own) that people who are poor are that way b/c they are lazy or not interested in working. Ironically every POOR person I know works 2-3 jobs and are STILL broke because the less you make, the more you must spend. Isn't that ridiculous?
Mostly, they associate social programs with people that sit home and do nothing. Even if this may be the case for some on welfare, are they living the high life? Is their quality of life that good that your PENNIES can't collectively help keep them afloat??
One thing my father taught me growing up is that if you are going to pay for something, it's best to pay up front. When you pay after the fact, it's usually a LOT worse. So, we can either help all Americans out here and there with the relatively small amount of the tax code or we can deal with a bigger problem: higher crime rates. Either we can subsidize health care and possibly even contraception or deal with higher birth rates and more sick people.
Just like every neighborhood, if YOUR house is worth a lot or is in great shape and your neighbors isn't then it's worth a lot less. I don't know about you guys but I like a HIGH property value for my country!
You fail at godwin's law
GWB put wars off budget
Laugh all you want. We have enough money, if you want to pay rich to get richer, vote Rmoney.
If you want to rescue our country from fascism, vote Obama.
I'd rather be more taking care of people than feding the already fat. But, hey, I'm a survivalist.
Not thinkingcitizen, you really should look up what "fascism" really is.
From Merriam-Webster:
I highlighted the parts that the Obama admin fits into.
and I counter with
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Fascism promotes political violence and war" Wars started for no reason?
"Fascism condemns liberal democracy" Voter suppression on the right?
"It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial to the national community"
So, the good of the corporation is better than the good of the many. I get it, I see you in the daylight.
you are known, and we will let others know your ambitions!
Thinking
Wiki? Really? Maybe you should change your name.
Yes, it’s true that on June 28, 1985, Reagan gave a speech to Bloom High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois about problems with the tax code in which he told an anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. But if you read the whole speech, it’s clear that Reagan was telling the story as part of his pitch for tax reform.
“Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future,” Reagan said that day. “It'll mean if you work overtime or get a raise or a promotion or if you have a small business and are able to turn a profit, more of that extra income will end up where it belongs -- in your wallets, not in Uncle Sam's pockets.” So there are several key differences with Obama. To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.
If Obama is going to quote Reagan, he really needs to get it right. What a POS
You are so silly that I can only laugh at your ignorance. Go ahead, spout your anti-American nonsense.
Greed is good, that's what Jesus told you to do... Righty right?
Do some maths, get out of your homeschooled world. Get an education beyond what your parents brainwashed you.
Then you can not counter my argument? Obama is WRONG and is taking Reagan out of context.
I was not home schooled, I went to public school but I went before the dept of ed and it's liberals took it over. I graduated in 1970 and the dept of ed got created in 1965.
But I am not sure what you want me to do the MATH on. Obama miss qouted Reagan as he always does. But not his fault, he just does not understand the the freemarket concepts as most liberals don't.
This additional tax Obama is proposing is nothing more than a farce. He implies this will make an impact on the deficit; "that's not all we have to do the close the deficit..." It will do virtually nothing; it's like trying to take down an elephant with a pea shooter. Obama's deficits are the highest in U.S. history...all well over a trillion dollars each year. The three or four billion that might be realized would make no difference. Most likely the very rich would put their money is alternate places, but small businesses would suffer and the unemployment rate would go higher, and there would consequently be fewer taxpayers to contribute. The net result of this ill-conceived tax could easily result in less revenue. The reality of the situation is that Obama is creating class warfare and he knows he cannot get this tax passed. So why is he promoting it? Purely for political reasons. It's a disgusting effort.
Yeah, and Jesus was "disgusting" for wanting to take care of people too.
Far left richie agrees this is exclusively for politics - but thinks any income not reinvested should be taxed at a higher rate for richer people making two tiers out of it to shut down this sole proprietorship argument right away...
But the more people this repulsive war criminal draws into the simplest debates the better off he is...
thinking Citizen,
In what passage of Scripture did Jesus teach to force people with a threat of imprisonment if they don't give their money to the Govt to redistribute it?
Helping the needy for Christians must come from the heart and be done as unto Jesus Himself (Matthew 25, Isaiah 58, and others). Ms Posner and liberals like Obama advocate something very UNCHRISTIAN which is socialism by wanting it to be done by compulsion and theft. It amounts to asking Christians to sin by putting our trust and transferring glory to man/government instead of God. Christians are required out of love that has been poured into our hearts to demonstrate Christ's love to others and in so doing, glorify God. The ONLY way that this can be done through government is in a theocracy, and NO ONE wants to see that.
'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' Matthew 25:40
Having the govt seize our property and redistributing it to glorify man/govt is a sin and contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
and in 2 Corinthians 9:6-15
But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written:
" He has dispersed abroad,
He has given to the poor;
His righteousness endures forever."
10 Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men, 14 and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you. 15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!
Isaiah 58:6-9
This is the kind of fasting I have chosen:
Loosen the chains of wickedness,
untie the straps of the yoke, let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke.
7Share your food with the hungry, take the poor and homeless into your house,
and cover them with clothes when you see them naked.
Don't refuse to help your relatives.
8Then your light will break through like the dawn, and you will heal quickly.
Your righteousness will go ahead of you, and the glory of the Lord will guard you from behind.
9Then you will call, and the Lord will answer.
You will cry for help, and he will say, "Here I am!"
cherry picking scripture is a favorite thing to do amongst the self righteous.
it's either 100% true or 100% false, don't bear false witness!
Thinking Citizen, your choice of names is a joke right?
I've yet to see you make a substantive response to anyone.
There is no cherry picking. If I'm wrong, simply list any verses where Jesus states that we must stop glorifying God and instead glorify man/govt. And we must do so through compulsion rather than giving from the heart as unto Jesus Himself.
Just a little help before you scramble. "Give unto Caesar, what is Caesar's" has nothing to do with charity through Govt. Jesus stated that the money belonged to Rome, so if they ask for it, give it back to them because it's their's.
It's funny war criminal how the more you drop the bottom right from under this nation the more you seek shelter behind a simpler and simpler concept we are confused about...
Great for you that you made this nation so @!$%#ed up that you are able to draw on populist support to cement over the most shameful period in this nation's history using the pretext of keeping the simplest ideas held together as cover where your intellect on the surface is so strong -but so poorly understood-that is justifies anything under it -until it starts to fall apart again and again...
Why would I still have to tell a local police officer, doctor, even a Secret Service agent there is no lawful proof I was ever under investigation even as its consequence driving process is hardening right around me??
You truly took something great about this nation away from all of us, from the super rich to super poor, all to stay ahead of the dangerous mic and try your best to hold the simplest @!$%# together cause your leadership is blessed living in a nation so insecure that the poor want to pay more in taxes than the rich because with that handicap even the most incompetent and shameful piece of @!$%# can look good on the surface...
Finally, an achievable goal for this administration............. win the race to the bottom.
I believe Obama has done a great job of dividing America. Pitting the wealthy against the middle class and poor. What he fails to show is how much in ABSOLUTE dollars, the wealthy pay in taxes. Yes, wealthy Americans' may pay a 15% tax rate, but that is 15% of say 1 Million dollars, or $150,000. Compared to 15% of a middle class salary of $50,000, which is $7500.00. So who is paying more taxes?
Add to this the KNOWN economic theory-proven-that when you lower the tax rate, government revenue increases because compliance is higher and more people are paying taxes. This is known as the Laffer Curve. When the tax rate increases, people, particularly the wealthy, devise ways to pay less taxes-loop holes, hiding income, etc. According to the Laffer curve if the tax rate were 100% government revenue would be zero, conversely if the tax rate were 0%, government revenue would be zero also, therefore there is an effective rate that will maximize government revenue, and many times that rate is LOWER than what is currently implemented. Anyone, including Obama, who believes raising taxes during a time of slow economic growth, on a very small minority of tax payers will make any difference in the budget does not understand economics. Macro economics is no different than micro economics, reduce spending, increase revenue. Until someone implements that sort of a plan, the country will never prosper. The rich create jobs, stimulate the economy, and drive economic growth. If everyone in this country were on government assistance there were no wealthy people, who would pay the taxes that were needed to support everyone who was government assistance? Economics are unfair, there will always be the haves and the have nots. I was a have not, and I educated myself, and worked until I became someone that has wealth. This is the essential part of what this country is about. Look at Obama, a have not who worked himself up to a man with wealth and power. He is one of the one percenters, but everyone seems to forget that .
P
The other part that Obama fails to mention is that the "rich" who pay only 15% have already paid on that money at a regular and much higher tax rate. The tax on investments is double taxation. Also, if taxes on investments increase, where is the incentive to keep making investments?
Obama is a horrible President but like any other Narcissist he is a great at self promotion. The Buffet rule is just pandering to the uninformed voter. It has no chance of passing and the President knows it but it makes for good sound bites to attract the OWS type folk.
Ever notice how the Libbernuts post here all day because they have nothing else to do, then in the afternoon the conservatives get home from work and login.
Obama is out in November.....no matter how many times I have to vote ;)
The "Buffet Rule" only effects 400 people. Even if you taxed them at 100% over the next 10 years, it would not make any difference.
Plus, the "Buffet Rule" only taxes INCOME not wealth. Wealth is what you already have and is in banks making interest. But liberals have no idea. All they want is to take the money from someone who has it and give it to me, not realizing that they will see NONE of the money unless they are in with big government, like GM,GE, Soylendra and so forth.
Lets see if we can all agree. If you have moneys, offshore or otherwise, that you are just sitting on, not creating jobs, we as the US tax the bejesus out of you. However, if you have moneys, offshore or otherwise, and you use that money to *actually* create jobs, you get to keep your current tax advantage.
Fair enough?
The problem is that if you taxed all the millionaires and above at 100% and took all their assets, all of them, it wouldn't even pay for one year of an Obama budget. The following year there would be no "rich" left to tax. The problem our economy has is a spending problem and the biggest spender in U.S. history is Obama himself. Things can't get better until he is removed from office or drastically changes his spending, not taxing, policies. Fair enough?
But if the money is off shore, how are you going to tax it? They keep if off shore for a reason. Understand?
I didn't vote for this Pres. and probably won't vote to re-elect him, but I do agree with him on this issue.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share of taxes.
Now we need to go after US-based companies which have used foreign banks as tax shelters, to get them to move their money back to the US.
GE paid ZERO taxes on $14 million in profits....so WHY did Obama appoint their CEO Immelt to chair a Jobs committee???
What a joke!
That will NEVER happen under Obama. They only way to get them to bring that money back is to lower the tax rate when they do, Obama wnats to raise the tax rate on them, so they will NEVER bring it back.
SO sick of hearing President Hollywood speak about FAIR!!!
Is it FAIR that "WE" have paid the bill for over One hundred (100) campaign/Fundraisers???? He makes sure to schedule 1 little speech, so he can schedule 3 fundraisers! (like in Florida)
No President in History has had this many fundraisers at this point in time...and we still have almost 7 months left before the Nov. election! He's making sure that the deficit hits $16 TRILLION!
BTW.......President Hollywood is a MILLIONAIRE!
Trick us once, shame on You...trick us twice, shame on US!
4 more years of this "Hope & change"...we will not recognize this country!
cite facts, don't just spew.
What is FAIR? Obama wnats the "rich" to pay more in taxes so they would pay thier "fair share". But he NEVER talks about the 49.5% that payes NOTHING in federal taxes. Why is he not wanting them to pay thier "fair share"?
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) says that the Buffet Rule will raise close to $47 billion between 2012 and 2022. And now the President is admitting this is just gimmick?
Just recently the CBO reported that that if laws remain unchanged the federal budget deficit for this year will be $1.1 trillion (). That number is in addition to total debt over $15 Trillion and projections that by 2021 federal debt will be over $20 trillion ().
Clearly, our debt problem is a spending problem, and tax increases for "fairness" won't help.
our debt problem stems from deregulation and off the book wars. I President Obama took the war spending back off the books, things would look quite rosy by comparison...
The United States has gone from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation—and not due to the war on terrorism, Walker noted. “Of that $760 billion deficit last year, only $100 billion had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or incremental Homeland Security costs,” Walker said.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/walker.htm