Senate Blocks Buffett Rule 30% Tax Floor on Top Earners.
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...p-earners.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yM3QXVpEpV...voting+GOP.jpg

:D

well if we re- elect Obama, we'll all look like the guy with his thumbs in his pockets, and all of Obama's buddies will look like the guy on the right, a bag full of money and hookers for everybody, all in the name of redistrabution of wealth. I haven't heard one word from the Dems how they are going to limit spending or down size government, and even when they will pass a budget, government needs to it's fair share too.

And I never really heard one word from the Republicans about how they were going to reduce the spending and size of government when they made a new agency and championed 2 wars abroad either.

IMO the tax code that allows the uber rich to skate by paying so little is no accident and is shameful.

The US Senate is controlled by the Democrats. If they can't get it passed it's not the Republicans fault.

42% of House and 67% of Senate are millionaires. So where is the surprise?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...oportionate-s/

Well vote for Obama, since you hate the rich so much, republican progressives are just as bad as the liberal dems, so tell Yubba how tax-ing the rich is going to get us out of this jam when general electric hasn't paid any taxes.. I guess you are ok with the government giving a billion dollars to the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. Oh by the way Warren Buffet owes a billion dollars in back taxes and is fighting the irs, not to pay, Hippo Critters.

Whole thing kinda reinforces the belief that we have the best government money can buy.

But Yubba, how will the GSA have their parties? And US hookers are too expensive, so our SS:haha: agents need to buy cheap foreign labo(u)r.

Stop being a h8tr Yubba and pay up, so our agents can buy US hookers.

It's for the children.

Don't make me get Sally Struthers in here to shake you down Yubba.

I think some of these government hippies types need to get a haircut and get a real job, not one watt of power produced at the Dept of Energy, not one plant grown at the Dept of Agurculture, no work ever produced at the Dept of Labor, and you know there's no justice at the Dept of Justice, heck I can't afford a beer let alone hookers, these government types sure know how to live, and they have the nerve to bitch about paying in 3% into their retirement. Nikimcbee shouldn't you be workin on that pt mod, I sent Privateer that file on the Pt 109 it's all in your hands now.

Tell me about it! Executive branch isn't even executing nobody no more.

Sad times. Andrew Jackson wouldn't have stood for this. Pistols at dawn could do with a comeback.

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the total taxes collected....

Almost 50% of the population pays no taxes....

Where is the fairness again?

Oh - and the "buffet rule" would increase the federal tax income 47 Billion over 10 years (assuming it had no negative effect on the economy). Obama's budget calls for adding a minimum of 6.7 Trillion to the debt over that same time frame (though he has already added 5 Trillion in 3.5 years..) - so his tax hike for "fairness" is going to pay for all of 0.1% of his spending.

This is the most ludicrous thing I have seen - well - other than him presenting a budget and then telling his own party to vote against it!

And the grand jewel of the government is the Dept of Education where our kids come out, as dumb as a bag of hammers, where 2 and 2 is 22 ,,where american history is a myth, it's a wonder that they can tie their own shoes, a Dept that has hire lunch bag inspectors, and promotes no hugging, but promotes the gay lifestyle, so if 2 and 2 is 22, I guess we deserve being, 16 trillion dollars dept .:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%.

So yes, where is the fairness? Why did 93% of new wealth created in 2010 go to the top 1% of earners? You're damn right they need to pay the lions share of the taxes.

Maybe it's my conservative leanings but I don't see anything inherently unjust about the richest 20% owning 85% of the nations wealth. That is after all what defines them as rich.

They already do pay the lions share of the taxes but apparently that's still not enough, I wonder what, if anything, would be enough.

Growing wealth inequality has historically led to the downfall of nations. Whatever happened to a rising tide lifting all boats?

And wealth redistribution to the masses does the same - see the bankruptcy of Rome.

And of course the fact that this attempt - if it were successful - does absolutely nothing to deal with the problems we face as a nation - just doesn't get addressed.

Its a red herring - everyone look over here and we can debate "fairness" - while either answer still leaves us entirely broke. Not real bright....

Uh...ancient Rome is evidence for my side. Ancient Rome was a model of wealth inequality - still more equal than today's America though.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...rticle_forwdgt

Why is it in America's interest to persuade the rich to report less income?

You know, I see a dangerous trend here.It is a global trend that affects politicians from all over the political spectrum.

And that trend, by friends, is how every politician tries to say they are "just like me".

It sounds good in a slogan, but it is :damn: when you actually sit down and think about it.

No matter what country a politician is from, what ideology he supports, what office he is running for they always claim one thing: I am just like the rest of you.

This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard yet.

Why would any electorate allow a politician who claims to be mediocre to rule the country?
Would you trust me to run the country?;)

No? than why should you let a politician who is "just like me" to run the country?

This is horrible. I know people who will not settle for "average". They want the best, the best car, the best technology, the best test score, the best everything. Hell, even those who are content with "second best" still try to get the best we can get. Yet with politicians, not being "the best" is a good thing?

I am always baffled with it comes to this. When I'm stuck in french class, I wish I spoke fluent french. Yet apparently you a attack your political opponent for speaking french fluently?

I will be going into university next year, and of course I would love to make it into an top tier school. Yet politicians can use the fact that his/her opponent graduated from a top school to attack him/her?


what truly weird times we live in. The dumb leading the dumber:doh:

Boats need to be able to actually float in order for the tide to lift them. Filling the boats that do float with water from the ones that don't only puts all of them on the bottom.

Ancient Rome is NOT evidence for your side Mookie.....

The corn dispersion initially was Rome buying the corn and selling it at below market rate. As time progressed - it became a giveaway - that later grew out of hand. More and more and more began taking - while the wealth of Rome was sucked away in the process.

Gee - kind of like entitlement spending does to us now - Medicare and Medicaid, along with Social Security - were 43% of total GDP last year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._-_FY_2011.png

This doesn't even count the other entitlements the government funds, like welfare, food stamps, etc. I am not saying cut it off - but when you look at entitlement spending in total - pretend for a minute we didn't have any - and we would be in the black immediately.

In 2011 we took in 2.3 Trillion. Outlays were 3.6 Trillion. If you cut the outlay by ~35% - less than total entitlement spending - we would be in the black.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=200

Not saying that is a solution - its not. But raising taxes on those who already pay the lions share - especially spending this much time on something so inconsequential to the overall problem - is a diversionary tactic.

The fact that the left does not want to talk about the real issue - which is deficit spending (and no - "team r" isn't much better on that score) and instead wants to spend days talking about a tax hike that would fund all of 11 hours of the government - is patently absurd. It just goes to show they don't want to deal with the real issues.