Thread Rating:
04-11-2012, 02:54 PM
On Tuesday afternoon President Obama took a break from fundraising in Florida to make his pitch for the 'Buffett Rule', a proposal that would see the country's wealthiest pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.
The legislation is named after America's second richest person, maverick investor Warren Buffett, who has long complained that he and his fellow billionaires and millionaires are paying a far lower tax rate than the average middle-class family.
"Right now, the share of our national income flowing to the top 1% has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s," Obama told a cheering chorus of Florida Atlantic University students in Boca Raton, Fla. "And yet those same people are also paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. You might have heard this, but Warren Buffett is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary."
"That’s wrong," he said. "It isn’t fair. And it’s time for us to choose which direction we want to go in as a country. Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? That’s the choice."
As you might imagine, the Buffett Rule has had a mixed reception among the Forbes 400, many of whom are just fine with an average tax rate of 18%, thank you very much. Last week, media mogul Barry Diller called Buffett's tax dictum "irrelevant" during a radio interview.
Then there are the Koch brothers, the ultimate free-market, flat-tax champions; Charles Koch came out against Buffett last year, saying his investments do more good for society than more taxes would.
Forbes columnist and investment guru Ken Fisher strongly opposes the plan, as he explained last year in a magazine interview. "My advice to Mr. Buffett is to stick to what he does best," said the billionaire. "If you took a vote of the Forbes 400 I am pretty sure they'd say no to raising taxes on cap gains."
[Related: Gadgets for the 1%]
Well, there are a handful of billionaires who are on board with the Buffett Rule, and have come out publicly to say so. One of the most outspoken advocates of raising taxes on the rich: Buffett's friend and the only American with more money in the bank, Bill Gates.
In fact, Gates' father was the public face of Washington State's ballot initiative 1098, which would have slapped a 5% tax on income over $400,000 per couple and a 9% levy on income over $1 million. It ultimately failed, but Gates remains a proponent of higher taxes for the rich, telling the BBC in January that it's "just justice" for him and his fellow billionaires to pay a greater percentage to the state.
Gates and Buffett are joined by a roster of Forbes billionaires in support of the proposal, including private equity giants, an arts donor and a sports team owner.
Warren Buffett
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/S31BrQ3...142238.jpg]
AP
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, saying the 11% effective rate he pays is far lower than that paid by his secretary. The 'Buffett Rule' proposal is named after the Oracle of Omaha, America's second richest person.
Bill Gates
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/nbEgh45...141225.jpg]
Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images
Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates is a longtime friend of Buffett's -- they originated the Giving Pledge together, enlisting other billionaires to agree to give the bulk of their wealth to charity during their lifetime. Gates has also come out in support of higher taxes for the very wealthy, saying it'd be "just justice" for him to pay more.
Eli Broad
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/zvSB5Yp...141225.jpg]
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong
Billionaire arts philanthropist Eli Broad told Forbes last year that he backs the Buffett Rule. "Those of us who have gained great success have an obligation to pay more taxes," he said. "We've been coddled long enough and have tax breaks that 99.9% of the public don't have, and it's not fair."
Michael Bloomberg
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qGKTW1t...141225.jpg]
AP
New York's billionaire "Mayor Mike" has said that raising taxes is only fair -- and not just for the super-rich, but for everyone, depending on income levels. "Everybody’s in this country together," he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe in November. “Everybody pays taxes. We have a graduated income tax so those that have more, pay more as a percentage…[those who pay] all benefit and should understand it’s their money [too].”
Mark Cuban
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/06vtn_i...142238.jpg]
Ann Summa/Getty Images
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban gives the Buffett Rule a "resounding yes", according to an interview with Salon.com in October. He took part in the website's Patriotic Billionaire Challenge and was one of eight Forbes 400 members to respond positively to Salon's questions.
Click here to see more super-rich proponents of the Buffett Rule.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-ru...21680.html
The legislation is named after America's second richest person, maverick investor Warren Buffett, who has long complained that he and his fellow billionaires and millionaires are paying a far lower tax rate than the average middle-class family.
"Right now, the share of our national income flowing to the top 1% has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s," Obama told a cheering chorus of Florida Atlantic University students in Boca Raton, Fla. "And yet those same people are also paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. You might have heard this, but Warren Buffett is paying a lower tax rate than his secretary."
"That’s wrong," he said. "It isn’t fair. And it’s time for us to choose which direction we want to go in as a country. Do we want to keep giving tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans like me, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates – people who don’t need them and never asked for them? Or do we want to keep investing in things that will grow our economy and keep us secure? That’s the choice."
As you might imagine, the Buffett Rule has had a mixed reception among the Forbes 400, many of whom are just fine with an average tax rate of 18%, thank you very much. Last week, media mogul Barry Diller called Buffett's tax dictum "irrelevant" during a radio interview.
Then there are the Koch brothers, the ultimate free-market, flat-tax champions; Charles Koch came out against Buffett last year, saying his investments do more good for society than more taxes would.
Forbes columnist and investment guru Ken Fisher strongly opposes the plan, as he explained last year in a magazine interview. "My advice to Mr. Buffett is to stick to what he does best," said the billionaire. "If you took a vote of the Forbes 400 I am pretty sure they'd say no to raising taxes on cap gains."
[Related: Gadgets for the 1%]
Well, there are a handful of billionaires who are on board with the Buffett Rule, and have come out publicly to say so. One of the most outspoken advocates of raising taxes on the rich: Buffett's friend and the only American with more money in the bank, Bill Gates.
In fact, Gates' father was the public face of Washington State's ballot initiative 1098, which would have slapped a 5% tax on income over $400,000 per couple and a 9% levy on income over $1 million. It ultimately failed, but Gates remains a proponent of higher taxes for the rich, telling the BBC in January that it's "just justice" for him and his fellow billionaires to pay a greater percentage to the state.
Gates and Buffett are joined by a roster of Forbes billionaires in support of the proposal, including private equity giants, an arts donor and a sports team owner.
Warren Buffett
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/S31BrQ3...142238.jpg]
AP
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, saying the 11% effective rate he pays is far lower than that paid by his secretary. The 'Buffett Rule' proposal is named after the Oracle of Omaha, America's second richest person.
Bill Gates
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/nbEgh45...141225.jpg]
Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images
Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates is a longtime friend of Buffett's -- they originated the Giving Pledge together, enlisting other billionaires to agree to give the bulk of their wealth to charity during their lifetime. Gates has also come out in support of higher taxes for the very wealthy, saying it'd be "just justice" for him to pay more.
Eli Broad
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/zvSB5Yp...141225.jpg]
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong
Billionaire arts philanthropist Eli Broad told Forbes last year that he backs the Buffett Rule. "Those of us who have gained great success have an obligation to pay more taxes," he said. "We've been coddled long enough and have tax breaks that 99.9% of the public don't have, and it's not fair."
Michael Bloomberg
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qGKTW1t...141225.jpg]
AP
New York's billionaire "Mayor Mike" has said that raising taxes is only fair -- and not just for the super-rich, but for everyone, depending on income levels. "Everybody’s in this country together," he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe in November. “Everybody pays taxes. We have a graduated income tax so those that have more, pay more as a percentage…[those who pay] all benefit and should understand it’s their money [too].”
Mark Cuban
[Image: http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/06vtn_i...142238.jpg]
Ann Summa/Getty Images
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban gives the Buffett Rule a "resounding yes", according to an interview with Salon.com in October. He took part in the website's Patriotic Billionaire Challenge and was one of eight Forbes 400 members to respond positively to Salon's questions.
Click here to see more super-rich proponents of the Buffett Rule.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-ru...21680.html
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
04-11-2012, 03:45 PM
^ How hard would it be to close the $1.1 trillion budget gap by taxing “the rich.” Liberals believe, more or less, that once someone’s income reaches the “rich” threshold, they have little right to keep any additional dollars they make. Starting with that assumption, I set out to find how much “extra” money people really have.
The best numbers I could find came from IRS returns in 2008 (Excel spreadsheet). Unfortunately, the cutoff the IRS uses is $200,000 rather than $250,000, which is the level below which Obama promised no tax hikes. But if anything, counting more taxpayers as “rich” — and thus making more money available for government plundering.
The first question is: How much do these folks make in total? The answer is about $2.5 trillion.
If we wanted, we could stop here: You’d need to grab almost half that to finance the deficits Obama’s talking about, and for many of these taxpayers, the other half is already taken in federal and local taxes. No one works for free. But even if we can’t completely eliminate the deficit, maybe we can mitigate it substantially. So it’s worth going a little farther.
First of all, not all of that money is “extra.” I assume that when Obama talked about raising taxes on the rich, he didn’t mean he’d tax people who made $250,000 so much that they ended up with less than people who’d made $200,000. So, in this analysis, not only is he limited to taxing people who make over $200,000, but he’s limited to taxing the amounts that exceed $200,000. Of the aforementioned $2.5 trillion, only about $1.6 trillion is left after we subtract every rich filer’s first $200,000.
And of course, the federal government can’t take money it’s already taken, so we need to factor in taxes. Because we counted out the first $200,000 each person earned, we also have to count out the federal taxes on that income — about $50,000 per person. When we calculate the taxes paid beyond that, and subtract that number from the $1.6 trillion above, we end up with less than $1.3 trillion.
And then we have to knock off state and local taxes, which probably average 5 to 10 percent. All told, we’re left with about a trillion dollars — dollars that belong to people who already pay high taxes and are good at hiding money when taxes go higher.
Bottom line: If we can’t raise taxes on anyone who’s not rich, the income tax can’t be of much help in increasing revenue.
THEREFORE---I believe arguing for taxing the rich via the Buffett Rule is nothing more than a ruse. Why? Because getting the folks on board with this who don't pay taxes, and who are likely used to some type of tax payer entitlement, gives this administration the smoke screen they need to do one thing, raise taxes on everybody. But, only those that already pay taxes and, who is that? Middle class America. Of course the poor are going to line up with the liberals on this. They're along for the ride anyway, and liberals use the poor for a human shield to run interference. Conversely, the poor keep selling their vote to get to stay on board the gravy train. Kind of like the military strategy used during the cold war era known as MAD or, 'mutually assured destruction'. Only in this case, it's mutally assured benefits at the expense of MCA, middle class America.
The best numbers I could find came from IRS returns in 2008 (Excel spreadsheet). Unfortunately, the cutoff the IRS uses is $200,000 rather than $250,000, which is the level below which Obama promised no tax hikes. But if anything, counting more taxpayers as “rich” — and thus making more money available for government plundering.
The first question is: How much do these folks make in total? The answer is about $2.5 trillion.
If we wanted, we could stop here: You’d need to grab almost half that to finance the deficits Obama’s talking about, and for many of these taxpayers, the other half is already taken in federal and local taxes. No one works for free. But even if we can’t completely eliminate the deficit, maybe we can mitigate it substantially. So it’s worth going a little farther.
First of all, not all of that money is “extra.” I assume that when Obama talked about raising taxes on the rich, he didn’t mean he’d tax people who made $250,000 so much that they ended up with less than people who’d made $200,000. So, in this analysis, not only is he limited to taxing people who make over $200,000, but he’s limited to taxing the amounts that exceed $200,000. Of the aforementioned $2.5 trillion, only about $1.6 trillion is left after we subtract every rich filer’s first $200,000.
And of course, the federal government can’t take money it’s already taken, so we need to factor in taxes. Because we counted out the first $200,000 each person earned, we also have to count out the federal taxes on that income — about $50,000 per person. When we calculate the taxes paid beyond that, and subtract that number from the $1.6 trillion above, we end up with less than $1.3 trillion.
And then we have to knock off state and local taxes, which probably average 5 to 10 percent. All told, we’re left with about a trillion dollars — dollars that belong to people who already pay high taxes and are good at hiding money when taxes go higher.
Bottom line: If we can’t raise taxes on anyone who’s not rich, the income tax can’t be of much help in increasing revenue.
THEREFORE---I believe arguing for taxing the rich via the Buffett Rule is nothing more than a ruse. Why? Because getting the folks on board with this who don't pay taxes, and who are likely used to some type of tax payer entitlement, gives this administration the smoke screen they need to do one thing, raise taxes on everybody. But, only those that already pay taxes and, who is that? Middle class America. Of course the poor are going to line up with the liberals on this. They're along for the ride anyway, and liberals use the poor for a human shield to run interference. Conversely, the poor keep selling their vote to get to stay on board the gravy train. Kind of like the military strategy used during the cold war era known as MAD or, 'mutually assured destruction'. Only in this case, it's mutally assured benefits at the expense of MCA, middle class America.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-11-2012, 04:00 PM
This is nothing more than a President pitting one group of Americans against another. He wants to breed hatred and jealousy between rich and poor for his own political benefit. He can confiscate every single penny the ultra rich has and it will not last over a few months in the hands of our government. Anyone who cannot see that this is a crack in the door towards taxing us all more is a fool. We need more taxpayers, not tax payers paying more. Why can't BHO and so many of our congressman see that? Barry and those that try and turn Americans against each other are a disgrace to their office and our country. I hope Romney or whoever runs against this clown beats the hell out of him this fall.
04-11-2012, 04:21 PM
Bob Seger Wrote:Then why is the US Government suing Buffett for an estimated ONE BILLION $$ in unpaid taxes?
Splain that one WC!!!
For back taxes I'm pretty sure. That's the point. The rich don't pay taxes. There is so many loops and holes that the average American pays a higher %. Which is stupid. Buffet is not the only billionaire behind this.
04-11-2012, 04:23 PM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:This is nothing more than a President pitting one group of Americans against another. He wants to breed hatred and jealousy between rich and poor for his own political benefit. He can confiscate every single penny the ultra rich has and it will not last over a few months in the hands of our government. Anyone who cannot see that this is a crack in the door towards taxing us all more is a fool. We need more taxpayers, not tax payers paying more. Why can't BHO and so many of our congressman see that? Barry and those that try and turn Americans against each other are a disgrace to their office and our country. I hope Romney or whoever runs against this clown beats the hell out of him this fall.
You pay more taxes than this millionaire. Vote for him all you want.
04-11-2012, 04:44 PM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:You pay more taxes than this millionaire. Vote for him all you want.
The top 10% of earners in this country pay over 70% of income tax collected.
We need more tax payers and our government needs to spend less. Is there a problem with that concept? What will raising taxes on the rich really solve? Anything?
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
04-11-2012, 04:55 PM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:The top 10% of earners in this country pay over 70% of income tax collected.
We need more tax payers and our government needs to spend less. Is there a problem with that concept? What will raising taxes on the rich really solve? Anything?
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Collected? You heard hoot. Buffet still owes a billion from just one company.
04-11-2012, 05:24 PM
Wildcatk23 Wrote:Collected? You heard hoot. Buffet still owes a billion from just one company.
What does all this have to do with the current situation our country is in and the grand scheme of things? Raising taxes on anyone doesn't solve or help in any way. I go back to my first post on this subject. It's nothing more than a political ploy/diversion. The tax system needs to be simplified towards a fair or flat tax...More people need to be in the work force and our government needs to cut it's spending. Squabbling over percentages gets us nowhere. BHO wants to act like this is going to solve something. Give me a break! Mister spendthrift and his cohorts will stick it up a hogs ass so fast it will make your head swim. He needs to get off the class/tax envy wagon and work towards getting Americans back to work. He's useless!
04-11-2012, 08:04 PM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:Collected, paid, confiscated or took...Whatever you want to call it.
I would call it extorted. This is one of the main points the Tea Party activists are trying to shed light on. The government is taxing us to death. Then you got people that are so blinded by bias they actually line up with BHO in insisting the rich be taxed more. Billionaires have so much it's not so hard for them to get up and say, "yeah go ahead and tax me more". A billion dollars is a staggering sum of money. In fact, if a billionaire spent $14,400.00 dollars a minute, every minute, of every day, it would take 695 days to go through just 1 billion. Most billionaires tend to have multiple billions. I'd like to be on the recieving end of an hour's worth of that situation.
But, what if the government just takes every dime that the so called rich make in the fiscal 2012 tax year? Our national debt right now is $15,626,832,596,694.96 dollars, so we seize the weathy's earnings for 2012 and reduce the debt by less than a half trillion because the interest for one year on 15.6 T is at least, you guessed it, half a trillion dollars.
It's a total sham, and SKINNYPIG is right. We need more taxpayers. The ill-advised "Great Society" experiment has failed miserably. Taxpayers have bought the troubles of all who have brought nothing to the party but the 'want to'. The ranks of those who don't contribute have swollen to epic proportions because Uncle Sam has encouraged those on the government dole to belly up to the bar. The effect has been the exponential INCREASE of folks on welfare, not the envisioned decrease of Lydon Baines Johnson.
Welfare should be reduced to the level of being just enough to get by, not the replete list of perks we see these days. But back to my point, where once the taxpayer far out numbered the welfare recipient. Now, we see that trend reversed in that those with their hand stuck out have become so many, working folks can no longer meet the payments. The welfare segment of the American social structure can no longer be supported by the working public. Unfortunately, instead of saying sorry folks we have to start cuttng back, the Dems have launched a propaganda campaign against the so called rich making them out to be the villains, instead of the ever growing group of malcontents who think all they have to do is yell a little louder when they want even more free goodies.
I don't know how everybody else feels about all this but, it's time for these folks to find a job and support theirselves in what ever fashion they can muster. It is also time to change administrations.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-12-2012, 09:07 AM
SKINNYPIG Wrote:What does all this have to do with the current situation our country is in and the grand scheme of things? Raising taxes on anyone doesn't solve or help in any way. I go back to my first post on this subject. It's nothing more than a political ploy/diversion. The tax system needs to be simplified towards a fair or flat tax...More people need to be in the work force and our government needs to cut it's spending. Squabbling over percentages gets us nowhere. BHO wants to act like this is going to solve something. Give me a break! Mister spendthrift and his cohorts will stick it up a hogs ass so fast it will make your head swim. He needs to get off the class/tax envy wagon and work towards getting Americans back to work. He's useless!
Can I get an Amen! This does include military spending...all budget...20% cut today get rid of the department of education, income tax, and federal reserve... and that is just the start.
04-12-2012, 01:13 PM
Taxing the rich more, IMO, just seems like a short term fix. I think the whole tax system needs to be trashed.
04-12-2012, 06:37 PM
judgementday Wrote:Taxing the rich more, IMO, just seems like a short term fix. I think the whole tax system needs to be trashed.
It doesn't "fix" anything, even in the short term. It's being used to gin up animosity towards the rich. BHO and the democrats have NOTHING they can point at in his disgusting direction that justifies voting for him again, therefore they are going to point at anything that draws away from that fact. Right now it's the tax rate of the rich. Who knows what they will be pointing at in a few weeks? I know what it won't be...BHO and his record.
04-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Does anybody else see a possible link between the fact that Buffett's company owe hundreds of million of dollars in back taxes and his very high profile support of Obama's tax policies? Does anybody else wonder how much of Buffett's tax bill might have already been negotiated away in a "gentlemen's agreement" between Obama or his underlings and Buffett or his underlings?
Obama has a history of repaying people for their support using funds drawn from the public treasury. (See Solyndra, the UAW, et al.) I doubt that Obama just conveniently plucked Buffett out of the air as his billionaire poster child without good rea$on.
Obama has a history of repaying people for their support using funds drawn from the public treasury. (See Solyndra, the UAW, et al.) I doubt that Obama just conveniently plucked Buffett out of the air as his billionaire poster child without good rea$on.
04-14-2012, 02:32 PM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Does anybody else see a possible link between the fact that Buffett's company owe hundreds of million of dollars in back taxes and his very high profile support of Obama's tax policies? Does anybody else wonder how much of Buffett's tax bill might have already been negotiated away in a "gentlemen's agreement" between Obama or his underlings and Buffett or his underlings?
Obama has a history of repaying people for their support using funds drawn from the public treasury. (See Solyndra, the UAW, et al.) I doubt that Obama just conveniently plucked Buffett out of the air as his billionaire poster child without good rea$on.
Of course! The 'end run' is his modus operandi. From the Corn Husker kick back to his betrayal of the public trust embodied in his unfortunate 'aside' when, unaware that a microphone was recording him, President Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for breathing room until after his re-election campaign to negotiate on missile defense. I will never forget that one, ever the untimate epitomy of gall, arrogant doesn't come close to describing him.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-16-2012, 12:19 PM
^ Anybody who believes Obama has plausible deniablity in the war of words which has a strangle hold on everything political should read this;
Obama: Reagan was ‘Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior’
Thursday, 12 Apr 2012 11:53 AM
By Paul Scicchitano
In anticipation of next week’s Senate showdown over his proposed “Buffett rule,” President Barack Obama on Wednesday attempted to draw a comparison between himself and Ronald Reagan, referring to the Gipper as another “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.”
Speaking at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., Obama drew chuckles when he said that he is not the first president to call “for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share” and he offered to rename his proposal the “Reagan Rule” if it would sway Congress to buy into his campaign for higher taxes on top U.S. earners.
“He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule,” said Obama.
END ARTICLE---
Anybody who was around for the Reagan years knows how rediculous it is to say Ronald Reagan and Obama are like two peas in a pod when speaking of the two's respective economic policies. To say they are light years apart is an understatement. But, you don't have to take my word for it. See the following statement Reagan's son Michael has to say on the matter---
Michael Reagan, the son of the late president, labeled Obama a “sly dog” for previous statements Obama made about his father in a column published today on Newsmax.com. “You were also trying to make it seem that Ronald Reagan would support your socialist dream for America. That he would support hiking taxes to cover the deficit. That he would even support higher corporate tax rates and more government regulations on business,” penned Michael Reagan. “That, Mr. President, is absolutely untrue.”
Words are just tools for the liberal. Truth is at best 'subjective' in their most genuine moments and a distant non-factor the rest of the time. The end justifies the means to this bunch, how they get anybody to believe a thing they say is incredible. Nothing is sacred to them and twisting other people's words, alive or dead, great or small, is just another tactic they all subscribe to.
Obama: Reagan was ‘Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior’
Thursday, 12 Apr 2012 11:53 AM
By Paul Scicchitano
In anticipation of next week’s Senate showdown over his proposed “Buffett rule,” President Barack Obama on Wednesday attempted to draw a comparison between himself and Ronald Reagan, referring to the Gipper as another “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.”
Speaking at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., Obama drew chuckles when he said that he is not the first president to call “for this idea that everybody has got to do their fair share” and he offered to rename his proposal the “Reagan Rule” if it would sway Congress to buy into his campaign for higher taxes on top U.S. earners.
“He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule,” said Obama.
END ARTICLE---
Anybody who was around for the Reagan years knows how rediculous it is to say Ronald Reagan and Obama are like two peas in a pod when speaking of the two's respective economic policies. To say they are light years apart is an understatement. But, you don't have to take my word for it. See the following statement Reagan's son Michael has to say on the matter---
Michael Reagan, the son of the late president, labeled Obama a “sly dog” for previous statements Obama made about his father in a column published today on Newsmax.com. “You were also trying to make it seem that Ronald Reagan would support your socialist dream for America. That he would support hiking taxes to cover the deficit. That he would even support higher corporate tax rates and more government regulations on business,” penned Michael Reagan. “That, Mr. President, is absolutely untrue.”
Words are just tools for the liberal. Truth is at best 'subjective' in their most genuine moments and a distant non-factor the rest of the time. The end justifies the means to this bunch, how they get anybody to believe a thing they say is incredible. Nothing is sacred to them and twisting other people's words, alive or dead, great or small, is just another tactic they all subscribe to.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
04-16-2012, 08:03 PM
There is no law I know of, that says you can't pay more taxes than you are required to by law. If Buffett, Gates, Broad, Cuban, Bloomberg and the other mega wealthy think they should pay higher taxes, then why arent they? Who is stopping them?
04-16-2012, 09:26 PM
Old School Wrote:There is no law I know of, that says you can't pay more taxes than you are required to by law. If Buffett, Gates, Broad, Cuban, Bloomberg and the other mega wealthy think they should pay higher taxes, then why arent they? Who is stopping them?
You know they're (the billionaire advocates of higher taxes for the rich) getting something for their support of this thing. The quid pro quo with your list of the mega rich, would be worth the cost of doing business to get a law passed which would have the effect of empowering Obama to raise taxes. This would possibly give the Democrats the power of public opinion, and they could then overcome the opposition to raising taxes by the republicans.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
